Oral Answers to Questions

BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

The Secretary of State was asked—

Enterprise

Joan Walley: What steps he is taking to promote enterprise.

John Hutton: A strong enterprise culture is vital to the UK's long-term economic prosperity and can help us meet some of our important social objectives.
	Thanks to measures taken by the Government, there is a record number of small businesses in the UK and young people are increasingly looking to set up businesses as their chosen career path. More than 180,000 new businesses have been created each year since 1997 and new VAT registrations have exceeded de-registrations in each of those 10 years. We are working on strengthening our enterprise strategy and will publish a White Paper in the spring.

Joan Walley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome everything that the Government are doing to increase enterprise. We in Stoke-on-Trent, which is not traditionally renowned for the number of its small enterprises, are very proud that it was the winner of the Enterprising Britain award. I have been in touch with the "Make Your Mark" campaign and we have great hopes that, from now on, the Government will make Stoke-on-Trent a city of enterprise as valuable as Liverpool is as a city of culture, so that we can make progress on everything that they want to do for enterprise and encourage investors to come to Stoke-on-Trent because we are proud of our award.

John Hutton: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the North Staffordshire regeneration zone, which did a brilliant job in winning the national awards in 2007 and was a runner-up in the European competition. We will continue to do all we can to support enterprise in her constituency, which several initiatives can benefit. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness hopes to visit Port Vale soon to open some new enterprise units. As I said, we will continue to do all we can to support my hon. Friend's excellent work.

Brian Binley: Enterprise relies on new business, as the Secretary of State mentioned. What is he doing to help enterprising people who start up new businesses, given the credit squeeze, which is having such an impact on their cash flow? Will he ask the banks to be sensitive at this difficult time?

John Hutton: I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says. We are in constant communication with the banks and others to monitor the impact of the financial upheaval in the markets that has taken place since the summer. So far, there has been little impact on banks' borrowing practices in respect of small businesses, but we are keeping the situation under the closest supervision.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In areas of deprivation, social and community enterprises are an excellent way in which communities can take control and get themselves out of deprivation. What assurance can the Secretary of State give that people in those communities will receive assistance to give them the capacity to start their own businesses and social and community enterprises?

John Hutton: In our work on the new White Paper, we are closely considering the issue that my hon. Friend raises. In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), I said that enterprise is not only an economic issue, although it is a powerful one, but an important social tool that helps us reach into areas of disadvantage throughout the country. I am sure that a reinvigorated enterprise strategy can help areas in Britain that are under-represented in business start-ups to do better, and especially groups of people—for example, women—among whom the number of business start-ups is much lower than among other groups.
	We are examining a range of measures—I shall not announce the detail of the White Paper today—but I assure my hon. Friend that we acknowledge her points and are tackling them directly in our work on the White Paper.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does not the Secretary of State realise that most small businesses would laugh at his claim of championing enterprise? With Labour proposals to double capital taxes on business and abolish income sharing on dividends between spouses, with enterprise groaning under the weight of some 3,000 new regulations a year, with growing instability in the banking sector and now the high street, and with energy costs and inflation rising, how can he say that enterprise is being promoted?

John Hutton: Because we use facts and evidence, not the hon. Gentleman's empty huff-and-puff rhetoric. Policy should always be based on evidence, not ideology. He has made his party political point, which is all well and good, but I wonder what view business would take of a party that wants to cut research and development tax credits and business support schemes and introduce a new bureaucratic trading scheme for, for example, chocolate and fatty foods. That is evidence of a party that has totally lost touch with business reality in this country.

Margaret Moran: Following on from the question about social enterprise, I applaud the work that my right hon. Friend, the Department and the Office of the Third Sector in the Cabinet Office are doing to promote social enterprise. However, will he look closely at whether sufficient support is being given through Business Link branches, many of which are reformed? The support available is sporadic; in Luton, for example, we are under-resourced in terms of support and capacity building for social enterprise. That particularly affects those in black and minority ethnic communities who want to go into social enterprise, but do not have the advice and financial support to do so.

John Hutton: In relation to Business Link, we are again considering all such issues in the context of our work on the White Paper. On social enterprise, I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because he is overseeing a lot of the Government's work on social enterprise. It is important in all parts of the country that there should be an efficient, modern and private sector-led business support service that can provide bespoke and tailored business advice to businesses that are just getting going. That is very much our ambition for Business Link.

Business Competitiveness

Richard Ottaway: What steps he plans to take to improve the competitiveness of business.

Stephen Timms: The UK continues to perform well on a wide variety of measures of competitiveness, including the best measure, which is productivity. The comprehensive spending review set out a number of measures to raise long-term productivity further.

Richard Ottaway: In an increasingly competitive world, with an explosion in globalisation and fierce competition from India and China, was the Minister as dismayed as I was to read the report by the institute of management and performance showing that the UK had slipped from ninth to 20th place in the competitiveness league? He is an intelligent Minister, so what assessment has he made of the Government policies that have contributed most to that downfall?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right about the ferocity of the worldwide competition that UK companies face. There are a number of different indices, but some are rather volatile, partly because the methodology that is used changes from one year to the next. However, I refer him to the World Bank, which last year and the year before assessed the UK as sixth in the world for ease of doing business, and to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says that we have the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of all the OECD countries. However, the best measure is productivity, on which we have closed the gap with Germany, as well as having been the only G7 country to keep pace with US productivity growth since 1995. We have done well on competitiveness, and the new stability in the economy over the past 10 years has been the key.

Ashok Kumar: One sector that is competing well in the north-east is the biotechnology sector. Indeed, it is flourishing, with 50 start-ups being established in the past five years. I recently met members of the sector, who told me that they are facing difficulties, in that they need another 1,000 biotechnicians in the next few years. We need to address that issue as far as competitiveness is concerned. What are the Government going to do about it?

Stephen Timms: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that important subject, because we are establishing a new innovation and growth team to focus on the biotech sector. He is absolutely right about the importance of the sector for the UK economy, particularly as addressing climate change is an increasingly important priority. The Sainsbury review last year made the point that the UK is well placed to do well globally in industries such as biotechnology. That is why we have committed extra resources to science, to train exactly the kind of people that that sector and others need. Given the ferocity of international competition in the biotech and other sectors, we will continue to ensure that the UK does well. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is leaving immediately after questions to board a plane for India, and we will continue to battle for UK business.

Stewart Hosie: Competitiveness lies at the heart of many of our problems in Dundee over the past 12 months, with 1,600 job losses, including 1,000 in manufacturing, and the work directly transferred almost exclusively to more competitive economies in China and Hungary. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are aware of the difficulties in Dundee, so will they meet me and others who are concerned about the Dundee and wider Tayside economy with specific regard to the loss of manufacturing jobs? Will they also meet the local business community, if a request comes from the chamber of commerce to explore what the Government might be able to do in conjunction with the Scottish Executive?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the fierce international competition that we have been discussing applies nowhere more than in manufacturing. I would urge him to look at how the manufacturing sector as a whole has been performing over recent months. It has been doing well; I draw his attention to the fact that, for example, we made almost twice as many cars in Britain last year than we did 25 years ago. We want to take a fresh look at our manufacturing strategy. We introduced a strategy in 2002 that made a big contribution, not least through the manufacturing advisory service. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in November, we will review our strategy between now and the summer. I would welcome the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the business community in his area to discuss such issues.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the main elements in competition is the price of energy. He will also be aware that, last week,  The Sunday Times reported that six energy companies were meeting to conspire to ensure high energy prices. What action will he take to ensure that British competitiveness is protected from the profiteering of the energy companies?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of energy prices for competitiveness in the UK. He will be aware of the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and he will also know that Ofgem is looking closely at this issue. It is the case that the competitive market framework for energy in the UK has delivered energy prices that are among the lowest in Europe.

Mark Prisk: The Minister talks about the importance of improving competitiveness, not least among small companies. While he has been talking, however, the Chancellor has raised those companies' corporation tax rates and increased their business rates, and he is now planning a £900 million tax hike on their capital gains. How can small firms remain competitive when the Chancellor is taxing them to death? Is the Minister's Department going to stand up for those firms or simply let the Chancellor walk all over them?

Stephen Timms: I simply draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we have more small businesses in the UK today than we have ever had before. There are now 4.5 million of them, and there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of companies registered for VAT. I believe that the Chancellor is absolutely right to seek the simplification of capital gains tax. The combination of indexation and tapered relief had created a complex system, and he has proposed changes to address that. He is also listening to representations from small business organisations and he plans to make additional announcements.

Energy Supply

Philip Hollobone: What assessment has been made of the impact on business efficiency of energy supply contracts which require 90 days' notice of termination.

Malcolm Wicks: The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—Ofgem—is responsible for regulating gas and electricity supply, including supply to the business sector. Termination arrangements are a contractual matter between the supplier and the customer.

Philip Hollobone: My constituent, Mr. Mark Middleton of Coppicemoor Farm, Pytchley, near Kettering, has an electricity supply contract with npower. npower wrote to him 30 days before the end of the contract to ask him whether he would like to renew it. He said that he would not, but npower said, "Tough. You should have given us 90 days' notice." So Mr. Middleton is now tied into his contract with npower for another 12 months, after which he will seek an alternative supplier. Will the Minister look into the notice periods that companies impose on their customers? This inability to switch easily between suppliers is creating a brake on business efficiency.

Malcolm Wicks: The general principle has to be that business customers can protect their own interests, and that includes monitoring the terms of their contracts and the expiry dates involved. We recognise, as was noted in an earlier question, that high energy costs are affecting businesses as well as domestic customers. For those reasons, I would be happy to bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of the chairman of Ofgem, with a request that he consider whether any changes to the rules governing business supply are required.

Julie Kirkbride: Will the Minister give us his assessment of why energy prices have gone up so dramatically in the past few months? Is it simply to do with the price of oil? Does he have any evidence of the anti-competitive behaviour that was mentioned in a previous question? Or is it the failure of the EU energy markets to be properly competitive?

Malcolm Wicks: There are a range of factors. The major background factor has to be the huge global demand for energy in the emerging economies of India, China and many other countries, as well as the demand in the western economies. We have seen increases in the wholesale price of fossil fuels of between 50 and 80 per cent., and that has to be the major factor. The Chancellor is in discussions with Ofgem and the Secretary of State is also involved to make sure that the relationship between wholesale price increases and retail price increases is appropriate. We have a competitive energy market here; there is an issue in Europe, where we continue to press for the liberalisation of energy markets. The hon. Lady is right that that is another important factor.

Paddy Tipping: What recent discussions he has had with energy supply companies on reducing fuel poverty.

John Hutton: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has met the chief executives of all the energy supply companies with a view to improving support to those at risk of fuel poverty. The level of support that companies are providing this winter has increased from £40 million to £56 million. The Minister for Energy and I will meet chief executives again shortly to discuss the best way to ensure continued support. Overall, the Government have provided £20 billion in support for the fuel poor since 2000, with 2 million households helped by our fuel poverty schemes and close to 12 million receiving winter fuel payments each year.

Paddy Tipping: That is a good record, but more needs to be done. Some householders face price increases of 27 per cent., which has clear implications for the Government's fuel poverty targets. In his discussions with companies, will my right hon. Friend commend those that offer good social tariffs and reprimand those that do not, reminding them of the possibility of compulsion?

John Hutton: I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. A number of electricity supply companies have done exemplary work in trying to address some of these issues, particularly with regard to those who rely on pre-payment meters. There is an issue there that is now being addressed. We have decided not to legislate in the Energy Bill to introduce mandatory social tariffs at this point, given the extra investment by companies and their commitment to continue it, but we will keep the matter under careful review.

Steve Webb: Is it not the case that the amount of money that these companies spend on social tariffs is a pittance in comparison with their huge profits? Are not all these cosy conversations with the companies achieving practically nothing? With fuel poverty doubling over the last couple of years, is it not time to legislate to make poor people protected instead of hoping that companies will do what should be the Government's job?

John Hutton: We should intervene in the most effective way possible. I know that the hon. Gentleman's instinct is always to regulate and to legislate, irrespective of the ability of other mechanisms to deliver. That is not our approach. We are making progress on fuel poverty. There is obviously a growing issue with rising energy prices, which is why in our talks with energy companies we will be redoubling our efforts to find a sensible way to proceed, particularly for elderly consumers of gas and electricity, for whom I accept there is a particular hazard.

Mark Lazarowicz: One of the problems with social tariffs is that there is not just a difference, but a vast disparity, between the tariffs offered by different companies, which confuses consumers and others. That highlights the fact that some companies are doing a lot more than others, so I urge my right hon. Friend carefully to consider how to achieve not just an incremental increase in the amount of money going into the industry's support for consumers, but a substantial increase right now, at a time when customers really need any extra support that they can get from a proper social tariffs programme.

John Hutton: As I said, we are in discussions with the energy companies, and those discussions are continuing. They have all promised to maintain the support that they are providing over the next three years. We will discuss with them what more, if anything, can be done. From the Government's point of view, I have already pointed out some of the areas where we are investing directly in this issue. It is important to keep the overall picture clearly in mind. We are providing direct financial help with energy costs for households and we are also investing more over the next spending review period on energy efficiency for domestic households. We must continue to wage this war on a number of fronts, but I can assure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members who are rightly concerned about this issue that the Government are very seized of the significance of these matters and are doing all they reasonably can to address the concerns that are being expressed.

Alan Duncan: Last week, we witnessed what can only be described as a rather crude stunt in which the Chancellor reprimanded Ofgem as if it were somehow responsible for higher energy prices and fuel poverty. Is it not the case that, in addition to world commodity prices, the main component of our energy bills' increase is the higher price of carbon? Is it not also the case that the main culprit here is not markets, but the Government's failure to adjust their policy on addressing fuel poverty in a way that actually keeps pace with harsher global conditions? Does the Secretary of State agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) that companies are, as he put it, conspiring to keep prices high?

John Hutton: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has an obvious and perfectly legitimate interest in inflation, and given the significance of energy prices to overall inflation levels, I think that his intervention was entirely proper and appropriate. As he and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy have said, we need to understand the interaction between wholesale and retail prices, and I think that it was perfectly fair and proper to initiate such an inquiry.
	As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, the regulatory arrangement for our energy market is one of the most effective anywhere in the European Union, and the result has been, on average, significantly lower energy prices in the United Kingdom. It is up to the competition authorities, which oversee unfair trading practices, to examine any evidence of criminal or illegal behaviour, and if there is any such behaviour, people should draw attention to it so that proper inquiries can be made.

Alan Duncan: Many economists might say that there is a difference between inflation and just higher prices, but we will not give the Secretary of State a tutorial on that today.
	One of the most effective solutions to fuel poverty is to reduce households' fuel bills by helping them to consume less in the first place. Should the Secretary of State not feel ashamed—indeed, he referred to this in his earlier answer—that the Energy Bill, which was published last week, contains nothing whatever to promote consumer and household energy efficiency, and will therefore continue and even exacerbate people's exposure to rising fuel prices in the months and years ahead?

John Hutton: I have a great regard for the hon. Gentleman, but I have never seen him as my tutorial adviser when it comes to energy matters—or, indeed, to any other matter that I could possibly think of. However, I am grateful to him for at least the offer of some sort of support in the future.

Alan Duncan: You might learn something.

John Hutton: I doubt that very much indeed, but it might be nice to have a chat with the hon. Gentleman socially, at least.
	As to the wider issue of energy efficiency, the measures that we have taken have benefited more than 2 million households in the United Kingdom. We are doing more than previous Governments to tackle the issue of demand for electricity through energy efficiency measures, and we are seeking to make significant improvements in the work that we are doing.
	The hon. Gentleman, along with others, seems to have been affected by the contagion that the only response to the issue is to legislate. That is, perhaps, a lesson with which I can help him out in this two-way exchange of ideas that we are to have. Legislation is not necessarily the right answer. The Government have the power and the means, and are using them, to help more households to become more energy efficient, and we can do that without any more regulation or legislation.

Minimum Wage

David Hamilton: What steps his Department is taking to publicise the minimum wage legislation.

John Hutton: We are running a new national campaign to raise awareness of the minimum wage. The campaign includes national and regional advertising and an online campaign for young workers, in addition to our targeted enforcement campaigns aimed at the hotel sector. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure full, effective enforcement of the national minimum wage legislation that the House has passed.

David Hamilton: I support the Government's campaign, which I have seen on television and in the press. However, as my right hon. Friend knows, thousands of workers, mostly part-time and female, are still being caught in the middle. Will the campaign include explaining to employers the penalties that they will incur if they are found to be underpaying their workers?

John Hutton: Yes, the campaign will deal with all those issues. It will not just provide information, education and advice, but explain how to make and proceed with a complaint. As my hon. Friend will know, we have acted to increase the penalties for violation of the minimum wage legislation, but although we can and should always seek to improve enforcement, I trust that those of us who have always supported the concept of a national minimum wage will draw some comfort from the fact that this year it will be 20 per cent. higher in real terms than it was at the time of its introduction in 1999, without the negative impact on jobs that all Conservative Members confidently predicted.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that all the migrant workers from eastern Europe who are in East Anglia are being paid the minimum wage?

John Hutton: No, I am not, and addressing that issue will be part of our campaign. Anyone who is working legally in the United Kingdom is entitled to the full and proper protection of UK legislation, and that should and will apply irrespective of a worker's nationality.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the campaign, and in particular the minimum wage campaign bus, which I believe will come to the west midlands tomorrow. However, does the Secretary of State agree that advertising the minimum wage is one thing, but enforcing it is another? Will he outline just how this bus will help some of the most vulnerable workers get their rights in terms of wages and conditions?

John Hutton: As a former bus driver myself, I am keen to see buses employed in this helpful way, and the point of the bus campaign and service is to make sure that, as my hon. Friend says, we reach parts of the country where we know there are potential problems. The bus can do that; it will tour across the United Kingdom with expert advice available on board to help those who want and need it.

Post Office Closures

Tim Loughton: How many sub-post offices provisionally identified for closure will not now be closed following the post office consultation procedure.

Patrick McFadden: Decisions on six area plan proposals have so far been announced by Post Office Ltd. As a result of information received during the local public consultations, it has to date decided not to proceed with 15 post office closure proposals. Also, a number of changes have been made to initial plans in the pre-consultation phase, which involves Postwatch, sub-postmasters and local authorities.

Tim Loughton: My constituents are awaiting with trepidation the results of the consultation exercise, which threatens seven of my sub-post offices—half the sub-post offices in my constituency. The Post Office claims that a lot of research went into this exercise, yet it turns out that Postwatch is in the dark and has used out-of-date deprivation figures and erroneous distance figures, and one sub-post office was even put in the wrong county. Given that a very small number of sub-post offices have so far been reprieved out of now more than 230 which have been targeted for closure, what assurances can the Minister give my constituents that this is a genuine listening and consultation exercise, and not another cynical, bulldozing and box-ticking exercise?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman has campaigned very vocally for the post offices in his constituency. He will be aware that there is a review process, which involves Postwatch, as to whether Post Office Ltd has not abided by the criteria it has set out. That operates at several levels, and his ultimate course of appeal is to Allan Leighton, chairman of Royal Mail Group, should Postwatch believe that the process has not been carried out properly in his constituency.

Sally Keeble: In addition to issues to do with out-of-date data, some of my constituents are concerned by rumours about the sums involved in redundancy and compensation payments to the people who own the businesses. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that redundancy or compensation payments for loss of business will not be a factor in decisions on closing post offices, and that the consultation will not be prejudiced by such considerations?

Patrick McFadden: The compensation arrangements in the current post office closure programme are based on those that applied in the urban reinvention programme of several years ago. The Government took the view that it was right to recognise the long-standing commitment made by sub-postmasters and mistresses in local communities, which is why provision has been made in the package of financial support to the Post Office over the next few years to compensate those who are leaving the network as a result of the programme.

Sarah Teather: Given that the Government tried to manipulate the timing of the consultation to avoid the local elections, does the Minister think that residents who are concerned about the future of their local post office should consider the forthcoming local and London elections as referendums on post office closures?

Patrick McFadden: The Government abided by the Cabinet Office guidelines on these matters. I can only say to the hon. Lady that from my experience of recent months if anything is true about this programme it is certainly that it has not been carried out in secret.

Derek Wyatt: May I tell the Minister that two post offices in my constituency, those at Rodmersham and East street, are closing? The process has been a complete sham. I raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate, when I also mentioned franchising. It is possible to bid for and own a franchise of McDonald's, Starbucks or Kentucky Fried Chicken; is it too late for us to put together local initiatives to bid for profitable post offices that the Post Office wants to close?

Patrick McFadden: The issue of third-party involvement in taking over branches scheduled for closure has been raised in debates. I have encouraged Post Office Ltd to engage properly and seriously with local authorities or others who may be in a position to do so. I must also say to my hon. Friend that if such involvement is to happen, it is fair that Post Office Ltd is able to cover all its costs. Such costs include those relating directly to the branch, central infrastructure costs in support of that branch and what it calculates it can save by closing the branch and, in doing so, supporting a smaller network. One would also have to expect that if local authorities or others were in this position, the Post Office would ask them to commit to take over the branch for a reasonable amount of time—several years—rather than do this and be in the same position in a short time in the future.

James Gray: Under the consultation process in my constituency, which ends on 31 January, 10 post offices are threatened with closure, which is some 33 per cent. of the total. Post Office Ltd indicated in a recent meeting with me that we could perhaps save one or two if we found some factual error in the consultation process, but I was told, "If you save one post office, we will have to close another one because the Government have required us to close a total of 2,500. Therefore, if one is saved, another has to be chopped." Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm to Post Office Ltd that the requirement is not to close 2,500 post offices, but to close up to 2,500 post offices? In other words, it is possible that some of my 10 post offices might yet be saved.

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the figure is up to 2,500 post offices. I must tell him that Post Office Ltd also has to bear in mind the fact that the average amount it is saving from closing a branch that has been scheduled for closure is £18,000 per annum per branch, although the figure will vary depending on the individual circumstances of the branch. That is why replacements have been announced where decisions have been made not to proceed with closures. It is possible that Post Office Ltd might not take this approach in every instance, but there is a cost involved in making such a decision. That is why things have happened in the way that the hon. Gentleman set out.

Mark Todd: It is nevertheless hard to understand why the consultation in Derbyshire produced no changes in the plans and included the continued closure of the profitable post office in Church Gresley. Its business will now be transferred to another post office, which has no adjacent parking and where people queue in the street at busy times. It does not seem that rational decision making is taking place.

Patrick McFadden: I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes, but I would counsel caution on his description of post offices as "profitable". In order to make such a judgment, one has to consider not only the payment to the agent in the branch, but the central infrastructure costs to the Post Office. Such costs include support for the IT system in the post office, for the cash handling and cash holding in the post office, for the provision of forms to access Government business and, possibly, for security. A number of factors must be taken into account, not all of which are included in the payment to the sub-postmaster, so I counsel caution in asserting that his local post office is profitable when all those factors are taken into account.

Peter Luff: As the question put by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has perfectly illustrated this, it will probably come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that concerns about the adequacy of the consultation process and about the accessibility of sub-post offices and, indeed, Crown offices have been pre-eminent among the concerns expressed by hon. Members in response to the request by the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which I chair, for information and feedback on the consultation and the closure process. The Minister will come before the Committee on 5 February to deal with this issue. The Committee might subsequently make urgent recommendations—we are only halfway through the process, so there is time to adjust it. Will he commit to respond rather more rapidly to my Committee about any such recommendations than Governments are obliged to do, to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed?

Patrick McFadden: Of course we take the views of the Select Committee very seriously on this. It has published two reports, or two iterations, on the issue so far. If I may paraphrase their overall view, it is that this is a regrettable but necessary process to reduce the size of the network, as—I am sure—the Chairman of the Committee will confirm. I can assure him that any points made in future Select Committee examinations of the process will be taken seriously by me and by the Secretary of State.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend is fully aware that footfall plays a vital role in determining whether a post office is busy. The vast majority of that footfall arises from benefits and pensions. Keeping in mind the fact that the Post Office card account is to be replaced, will he say whether he has yet had, or is in a position to have, discussions with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the replacement for that account?

Patrick McFadden: The current Post Office card account contract comes to an end in 2010. The Government have committed to a successor product to it, and legally that has to be put out to tender. A decision will be made later this year. I am sure that the Post Office will bid strongly for that, but the process has to be legal and proper. A decision will be announced later this year.

Peter Tapsell: But does the Minister deny that the immediate closure announcement of many more sub-post offices has only been postponed until after the local government elections?

Patrick McFadden: As I said earlier, the Government have abided by Cabinet Office guidelines on this. This programme is taking place over a 15-month period, roughly speaking, and the local election campaign will take three to four weeks. It will not have a massive impact on a programme lasting 15 months.

Charles Hendry: Does the Minister not yet understand why the public feel so disillusioned by this consultation process? The Government have halved the 12-week consultation period recommended by the Cabinet Office; they are using access criteria that result in post offices being closed because of their geography rather than their viability; they are making it difficult for local communities to find other ways to provide funding to keep post offices open; they are setting communities against communities; and people feel that the campaigns that they have mounted have been ignored. Is it not time that the Minister accepted that his process is flawed and is neither taking account of local views and concerns nor delivering the right post office network for the future?

Patrick McFadden: I certainly understand the public concern about the closure of post offices which are valued organisations, but let us remember why it is happening. It is because the number of people using the post office has declined by 4 million a week in recent years. The network is losing several million pounds a week and the difficult decision was taken to reduce the size of the network and to support the remaining network with a subsidy of £150 million a year. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the subsidy committed by his Government was zero.

Nuclear Power

Norman Baker: What percentage of the UK's present energy needs would be met by the construction of one medium-sized nuclear power station; and at what estimated cost.

Malcolm Wicks: A single medium-sized nuclear power station of 1.2 GW would provide around 2 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs. This would be equivalent to about 0.8 per cent. of our total energy supplies. The White Paper on nuclear power published last week sets out why nuclear is the cheapest low-carbon option for electricity generation.

Norman Baker: What the Minister's response actually demonstrates is how deeply flawed the policy is. The reality is that nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic and, even on the Minister's own figures, one station will meet only 0.8 per cent. of our energy needs. Is not the reality that it would be much better to invest in energy efficiency and renewables, which would have a much better response in terms of energy policy, and is not what he proposes a white elephant and a red herring?

Malcolm Wicks: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, what my reply demonstrated was that I was answering his question. I invite him to read the nuclear White Paper before forming a judgment. Yes, energy efficiency is crucial to energy strategy for climate change and, yes, renewables play a vital part—and will play a bigger part in the future. That is our policy, but we need other energy supply, too. If one day, heaven forbid, the Liberal Democrats were in power, it would be a dark, cold and gloomy place, with their Members huddled around, burning Nick Clegg leadership manifestos to keep warm.

Stephen Ladyman: It is possible that zero-carbon nuclear energy might one day save the world from climate change; hot air from the Liberal Democrats certainly never will. After the proposals in the excellent energy White Paper are passed, nuclear power will have to internalise the cost of decommissioning power stations and waste, as it should. However, as I understand it, those rules will not apply to energy producers that produce energy using fossil fuels. Why not?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the entire costs for the management and disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel from any new nuclear power stations will have to be paid by the power companies. In terms of a wider strategy to reduce carbon emissions, we need to do many things. The EU emissions trading scheme is vital. Much will depend on a high price for carbon through the development of that scheme and we are pressing for that. Our Secretary of State has also announced a major demonstration project for carbon capture and storage, which surely also shows the way ahead.

Trade Liberalisation (Developing Countries)

Peter Lilley: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on liberalising trade with developing countries.

Gareth Thomas: All relevant Ministers discuss trade and development regularly, including in meetings of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on trade, during Cabinet and in the normal course of business. Recent discussions have focused, in particular, on the current round of world trade talks, economic partnership agreements and regional trade agreements.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. When next he and his colleagues meet to discuss international trade matters, will they agree that the time has come to break the logjam in the Doha round and the economic partnership agreement negotiations by urging our partners in Europe and in other rich countries to take the unilateral step of opening our markets to all low-income countries as defined by the World Bank? If they do that, I am sure that they will have the support of those on these Benches and a great number of non-governmental organisations and other experts in the field. It could be a great measure that would unify the nation and help the world.

Gareth Thomas: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the least developed countries already have access to the EU market, including the UK market, under the "Everything but Arms" initiative. I agree that we need to see progress in the Doha development round. We expect to see revised negotiating drafts of documents, which could potentially lead to ministerial discussions to close the round towards the end of January, or perhaps at the beginning of February. All sides will need to give ground and to show additional flexibility. I hope that the key players—the G4 members and others—will help to ensure that progress is made.

Topical Questions

Philip Dunne: If he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities.

John Hutton: The purpose of my Department is to help to ensure UK business success in an increasingly competitive world. We promote business growth and a strong enterprise economy, lead the better regulation agenda and champion free and fair markets. We are the shareholder in a number of Government-owned assets, such as Royal Mail Group, and we work to secure clean and competitively priced energy supplies.

Philip Dunne: It is now 100 days since the Government announced changes to capital taxation for business and individuals—plans described yesterday by the president of the CBI as being in "complete confusion". We now have only 54 working days until the 5 April tax deadline. Yesterday, the Government were accused by a respected trade association of creating the conditions for a false market in stocks because of their indecision. When will Ministers stop dithering, accept that this shambles is damaging British business and make a decision at long last?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go any further this morning, I expect topical questions to be punchy; they should not have so many words in them.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman will know that tax matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor who, along with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and other Ministers, has been listening to the concerns articulated by business. He will bring forward his proposals shortly, but it is not right for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the fundamentals of the British economy do not remain strong. They certainly do.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State is well aware that Britain's power-generating capacity is ageing. Many people will welcome the decision to replace the nuclear power stations, but many other power stations also need upgrading. Is he as dismayed as I am to hear that the Government are looking at imposing a windfall tax on power companies? Will he argue against that, and point out to the Treasury that it will do nothing but deprive the energy-generating sector of much-needed investment? Will he tell the Treasury to back off?

John Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he needs to do his homework a little more thoroughly. The Government have made no such proposals.

David Kidney: May I stress to Ministers that huge increases in energy bills at the coldest time of the year have left my constituents worrying whether they can afford to keep themselves warm? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he has ruled out legislation on social tariffs but, given the sudden and surprising double-digit increase in energy costs and the latest Energywatch research into inconsistent and inadequate social tariffs, will he not reconsider setting some sort of minimum standards to protect the most vulnerable citizens?

John Hutton: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I made the Government's position clear a little earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). We have not ruled out the action that he has described, but we have not brought forward proposals at this time because the energy companies are working hard to address the concerns that my hon. Friend and others have raised. My basic sense is that we should work with the energy companies to reach a voluntary agreement about the best way forward. However, if we do not achieve that, and if proper and adequate measures are not put in place, we have not ruled out introducing further legislation at some point.

Peter Bone: On 20 November, the Post Office announced which sub-post offices in Northamptonshire would be closed. The consultation period closed on 10 January. Is it not a sham to hold a consultation over Christmas and the new year? Do the Government not feel embarrassed about that?

Patrick McFadden: No, we do not. There is no easy way to undertake the process. The consultation schedule was set out last July, and the hon. Gentleman would have been informed about it. The overall process takes significantly longer than six weeks, as prior consultation is held with the relevant sub-postmasters. Post Office Ltd does its best to take all relevant factors into account in what is a difficult, and often locally unpopular, process.

Graham Allen: May I ask the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers to continue joining up the Department's efforts in respect of manufacturing? The skills agenda from the Department for Children, Schools and Families is to be welcomed, and neighbourhood renewal funding is being changed to workless neighbourhood funding. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness ensure that the new approach ties in tightly with the aim of the manufacturing sector so that people who have been reskilled have manufacturing jobs to go to?

Stephen Timms: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Manufacturing is a very important part of the UK economy, and it is changing into a high-value, technology-driven sector. New investment has been put in, and the manufacturing strategy has done a good job for us over the past five years. We need to make sure that it continues to do so and to provide manufacturing jobs in constituencies such as his. I am confident that the strategy, and the funding to which he referred, will continue to deliver for our constituents.

Tom Brake: Petrol prices have now hit £5 a gallon. When the current round of 2,500 post office closures is complete, how much extra in transport costs do Ministers estimate that vulnerable people, people in rural communities and businesses will have to pay as they travel to their increasingly distant and remote post offices?

Patrick McFadden: Even after the closure programme is over, the post office network will still be by far the largest retail network in the country—bigger than all the banks put together, and more than three times the size of all the major supermarket chains put together. It will have an unequalled footprint across the country in both urban and rural areas.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I listened to and read carefully yesterday's Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster). I am pleased to hear that there is an opportunity for local authorities and third parties to consider saving some post offices, but does the Minister accept that six weeks is not long enough? Under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, we need to explore how to get community involvement. May I meet him to offer some proposals on sensible and rational ways to save that wonderful network?

Patrick McFadden: I understand what my hon. Friend says about the length of the consultation process. We have received representations about that. We are, however, mindful of the uncertainty that has been hanging over the network for some time. From beginning to end, the whole process will take some 15 months. On his question whether I will meet him, I will of course be happy to meet him and to listen to any proposals that he makes.

Angela Watkinson: The Essex branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, which also serves the London borough of Havering, reports a nine-month delay in the issuing of VAT registration numbers, and I have a constituency case in which a local business man waited 11 months. What hope can the Minister offer that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will ever reach its published target of two weeks?

John Hutton: As the hon. Lady will be aware, that is a matter for my right hon. Friends in the Treasury, but I accept that those are genuine and proper concerns and I shall ensure that they are addressed to the appropriate Minister.

Andrew MacKay: As the title of the Secretary of State's Department now includes regulatory reform, is he not somewhat embarrassed that in a four-year period only 27 deregulations took place, whereas at the same time the British Chambers of Commerce identified 600 new regulations?

John Hutton: I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to regulatory reform orders, which are only one part of our approach to regulatory reform. If he looks in detail at the further plans that were published before Christmas—I am happy to send that very large volume to him—he will see examples of further measures that we are taking across the whole of government to reduce the administrative costs of red tape and bureaucracy. In that respect, we are beginning to make significant and promising progress.

David Chaytor: In his statement last week on energy, my right hon. Friend said:
	"the Government will need to be satisfied that effective arrangements exist, or will exist, to manage and dispose of the waste".—[ Official Report, 10 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 519.]
	I can understand how a Government can be assured that effective arrangements do exist, but it is hard to see how they could be sure that a future Government can be satisfied that, at some indefinite stage in future, such arrangements will exist. Will he comment on that?

John Hutton: I think my hon. Friend is referring to a section of my statement that dealt with the subsequent granting of planning permission for new nuclear plant, should any proposals be made. My remarks were framed in the context of the time scale, particularly in relation to long-term geological disposal. As he will know, because he studies these matters carefully, there is now, I think, no dispute about the arrangements for disposal: interim storage coupled with long-term disposal is the right way forward. In that context, I hope that he will reflect further on my remarks and understand the point that I was trying to make.

Philip Hollobone: The Hawthorn road post office in Kettering is a busy, popular and profitable local branch, which is earmarked for closure. Will the Minister urge Post Office Ltd to reconsider its closure decision? Will he also persuade the Post Office to open up the branch's accounts and share the information with Northamptonshire county council and Kettering borough council, to explore ways in which the branch could be saved?

Patrick McFadden: As I said in response to an earlier question, I counsel the hon. Gentleman to be cautious about describing his local post office as "profitable" when both central support costs and payments to the agent running the sub-post office are taken into account. On his question about discussions with the local authorities, if they are serious about covering all the relevant costs for several years—if that is how they want to commit local council tax payers' money—I would certainly encourage Post Office Ltd to talk to them.

Lorely Burt: Women-owned businesses comprise only 14 per cent. of UK businesses and, shamefully, only 8 per cent. of businesses in my own area, the west midlands, whereas the figure is 30 per cent. in America. Will the Government look seriously at the issue of supply-side diversity, which has become a cultural norm in America and which UK companies can and should be encouraged to promote for good business reasons?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is interesting to compare rates of entrepreneurship in the UK and US. Men in the UK are as likely as men in the US to start up a business; women in the UK are much less likely to do so than women in the US. That reflects a long-term policy focus over two or three decades in the United States on encouraging women's entrepreneurship in the way that she described and in other ways. We will consider the matter carefully before the enterprise White Paper that we plan to publish in the spring.

Tony Baldry: The Prime Minister is on his way to China today. By what amount do Members on the Treasury Bench expect UK exports to China to increase in the next three years, and what is the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform doing to assist UK companies to increase exports to China?

John Hutton: I am going with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, my plane leaves in about 20 minutes, so I had better keep my answer short. My right hon. Friend and I are going to China to make the case aggressively for open markets and free trade between the UK and China. We want significantly to support British companies to increase their share of business with China. I do not want to give a figure, for obvious reasons. I think that we should be as ambitious as we possibly can be. There is a very strong case now, as we have good relations with China economically, for building on that and looking forward to more business for British companies in that extraordinarily dynamic economy.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 21 January will be as follows:
	Monday 21 January—Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill.
	Tuesday 22 January—Second Reading of the Energy Bill.
	Wednesday 23 January—Motion relating to the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, followed by remaining stages of the Student Loans Bill.
	Thursday 24 January—Motions relating to the Senior Salaries Review Body report.
	Friday 25 January—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 28 January will include:
	Monday 28 January—Consideration of a procedure motion relating to the European Union (Amendment) Bill.
	Tuesday 29 January—Consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill.
	Wednesday 30 January—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the European Union (Amendment) Bill.
	Thursday 31 January—Topical debate, subject to be announced, followed by remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
	Friday 1 February—Private Members' Bills.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, although I ask her also to give us the business in Westminster Hall.
	This week, the whole country has been appalled by the news that one of Garry Newlove's murderers had been released on bail. I suggest youth crime as the subject for next week's topical debate.
	The Prime Minister has told  The Sun that he wants to change the law on organ donations so that consent is assumed, even though his organ donation taskforce has yet to report and he voted against a measure to change the law four years ago. Will he or the Health Secretary come to the House to make a statement on exactly what is Government policy?
	Yesterday, the Government finally published the Senior Salaries Review Body report. They have sat on the report since July and spun it to the media for the past month, and they gave it to Members only late yesterday afternoon. Will the Leader of the House ensure that that absurd situation never reoccurs?
	One way in which Ministers show disrespect for the House is in their failure to answer written questions properly. Departments are refusing to answer any questions about data security, including factual questions about the past. Instead, they hide behind the ongoing Cabinet Office review. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Justice have answered questions about past data security. If they can answer the questions, why cannot the other Government Departments do so? Will the Leader of the House remind her ministerial colleagues of the importance of written questions? Every week she tells us that she puts Parliament first; every week her colleagues treat Parliament with disdain.
	In November the Chancellor announced that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs had lost the personal data of 25 million people. It has now been reported that at least 20 more data security breaches have been discovered—that is two incidents each week since the Government said that they would sort it out. May we have a debate on the Government's chronic mismanagement of people's data?
	Yesterday the Prime Minister evaded specific questions about the cost of the Northern Rock crisis to the taxpayer. Given the supposed commitment of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House to put Parliament first, and given how serious the crisis is, when will the Chancellor make a statement on how much that is costing the British taxpayer?
	Finally, I understand that Tony Blair has written to the Prime Minister with a progress report on the Prime Minister's first six months. In the interests of transparency, would the right hon. and learned Lady place a copy of the letter in the Library?
	Talking of Tony Blair, it has been reported that President Sarkozy supports the nomination of Mr. Blair for the EU presidency. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary supports Mr. Blair's nomination, but may we have a statement from the Prime Minister on whether Mr. Blair is his preferred candidate? In six months, the Prime Minister has abandoned the national interest, ignored the British people and left us on the sidelines in Europe. Having waited so long for the top job, is the Prime Minister going to find that, yet again, he is dancing to Tony Blair's tune?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady raised a number of points. I would like to express what I am sure is the feeling of the whole House, and send our sincere condolences to the widow of Mr. Newlove. We all want to learn the lessons of that terrible crime and we continue to determine to take action against serious violent crime.
	The right hon. Lady asked about organ donation and about Government policy on organ donation. The policy is clear. We set up a taskforce, which has reported. We want to increase the amount of organs available for donation. That is important to save lives, because all too often at present people die while they are on the waiting list for organ transplant. The proposals arising from the work of the taskforce will be implemented by the Government. As for presumed consent and whether we should move to an opt-out system, that is not Government policy, but a subject on which the Government are keen to see further and wider debate. It is not a party political issue. We all need to think about how policy can ensure that organs are available for donation.
	The right hon. Lady made some points about the SSRB and complained that, as she put it, we had "sat" on the report since July. There is a particular context of public sector pay this time around in which we are considering the question of MPs' pay. We want to be sure that we do what should have been done many years ago: end the system whereby we vote on our own pay. At the same time as we published the SSRB report we issued a written ministerial statement, which states that we will propose that we do not award ourselves more than 2 per cent., and which also proposes a mechanism for ending the system whereby we vote on our own pay. The right hon. Lady mentioned timing in relation to the tabling of the motions. We tabled the motions yesterday and they are to be debated next Thursday. That will ensure that, should they want to, Members have enough time to table amendments to the motions. A number of Members have already done so.
	In her usual way, the right hon. Lady went on to allege that the Prime Minister treats Parliament with contempt. I say to her that in his first six months this Prime Minister has come to the House to give oral statements more times than the last two Prime Ministers did during their whole terms of office. That is about accounting for things.  [Interruption.]As I said, in his first six months he has made more oral statements than the last two Prime Ministers did during their whole terms of office. That is treating the House with respect and bringing issues before it.
	I will look into the right hon. Lady's point about the consistency of answers between different Departments on the question of data protection in Departments.
	This is the 15th time that the right hon. Lady and I have done business questions together. I see that she is a creature of habit. The pattern is clear: if there is a bandwagon, she will jump on it and if there is a myth, she will peddle it. She has carried on in that vein today.

Helen Jones: Further to what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the murder of my constituent Mr. Garry Newlove, is she aware that one of the people who murdered him had previously been let out on bail despite having had a history of previous offences and of ignoring court orders? Can we have a debate on how the bail system operates in this country, and on how we strengthen it to protect ordinary citizens from such violent offenders?

Harriet Harman: I know that my hon. Friend has raised the issue with the Home Secretary and asked for an inquiry into the case so that lessons—if there are any—can be learned, particularly on the question of the granting of bail. I shall bring the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the matter again in the House today to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Simon Hughes: I join the expressions of condolence to the Newlove family. On a basis of consensus, I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and support the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I suggest that we have an early debate, without any motion for substantive decision, on how bail applies to those charged with murder, rape and the other most serious offences—particularly in respect of under-18s or juveniles. Such a debate would be timely and the country would appreciate it.
	On the business that the Leader of the House has announced for the next fortnight, I should say that obviously we are about to begin the long march towards the implementation of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, and that is welcome. On Monday week we are to debate a procedure motion. Will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that the Government manage that, so that people know in good time when we will debate each substantive part of the Bill? There are environmental issues, constitutional issues and issues to do with home affairs and justice. In that way, people—not only us here, but those outside who have an interest—can see what is coming in good time, inform us and participate in the process.
	As one who has always supported the presumption that organs should be given, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement on that and suggest that we now seek to do something about deciding the matter again here; I realise that legislation is required. I suggest that we have an initial debate, to test the mood of the House and pick up the issues, and go on to implement, or discuss implementing, the change. That would be welcome and I hope that it could be done relatively easily and speedily.
	I have two last things to raise. A local government announcement is about to be implemented by a decision on the settlement for the coming year. Before that, may we have a debate on whether local councils will have the resources to implement equal pay for women and men who are local government staff?
	On Members' pay, I welcome the Leader of the House's motions on the Order Paper in relation to an independent mechanism for determining pay. Can she give an assurance to colleagues that this is not an excuse for putting stuff into the long grass but that we will have decisions not only about the mechanism but about the conclusions by the summer of this year?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I could just say, in case I gave the wrong figures last time, that what the Prime Minister has actually done in his first six months is given more oral statements to the House than the other two did in their terms of office.  [ Interruption. ] Sorry—their first six months. We are comparing the first six months.
	On the subject of bail for those who have been charged with committing offences, I suggest that we could consider that for a topical debate. A number of cases have just been concluded in the courts that raise the question of criminal offences that have been committed by people who are free because they are out on bail.
	On the European Union (Amendment) Bill, I have told the House that on Monday week we will discuss the procedure for conducting the Committee stage. All of that day's business will be an opportunity to discuss the process by which we debate the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As well as scrutinising the structure of the Bill, which has only seven clauses and one schedule, we want to enable the House to discuss the importance of Europe in relation to our economy, the global environment, tackling cross-border crime, and the Europe-wide contribution to international development. As I say, the Bill has only seven clauses and one schedule, and the House will have ample time to discuss it.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of transplant policy, as did the shadow Leader of the House. The taskforce has proposed further action, which the Government have committed to take. It has looked particularly at how the transplant rate—the availability of organs for transplant—has been improved in other countries. The country that has made most improvement is Spain, but the taskforce says that the reason for that is not necessarily presumed consent but the other measures that the taskforce is proposing to ensure that organs are made available. This issue concerns both sides of the House, we need a debate, and it needs to come to a conclusion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman propose it for a Westminster Hall debate. Incidentally, I announced the Westminster Hall business for the following weeks last time, so I have not sought to re-announce it to the House today.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked for an opportunity for the House to debate equal pay in local government. We are firmly committed to equal pay. It is important that all women are entitled to fair pay, including those who do important work in public services in local government. That is why we have increased the capitalisation available to £500 million to enable back pay. However, there is clearly more work to be done to ensure that we have not only strong public services but fair pay between men and women.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the SSRB and ensuring that we do not set our own pay in future but have a mechanism whereby there is a proper comparison and a way of deciding independently from our having a vote. He asked whether this has been kicked into the long grass. He will see in the written ministerial statement that we issued yesterday that we have asked Sir John Baker—we are very grateful that he has agreed to the Prime Minister's request to lead this review—to produce his report so that we can come back to the House before the summer recess to resolve the issue.

Khalid Mahmood: Would my right hon. and learned Friend take an early opportunity to look at the clamping regulations in force at the moment, to prevent people such as Nicola Platts in Great Barr, Birmingham from suffering at the hands of the sort of unscrupulous people who blocked her in? They made sure that she paid £150 cash there and then. If she had refused to pay that, she would have had to pay an additional £100 clamping charge. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into this matter urgently, and bring legislation to the House so that we can do what the Scottish Parliament has done, and abolish the practice?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his constituent. He might take the opportunity to raise it next Tuesday, during Transport questions. We all want good traffic circulation and effective clamping, but we do not want extortion by cowboys, which is what he is concerned about.

Greg Knight: May we have a debate on the desirability of an equitable tax system? Has the Leader of the House seen the report by Professor David Newbery of Cambridge university, which states that if motorists were required to pay the true cost of the damage they cause to the environment, they would pay tax at the rate of 20p per litre of fuel? Is she aware that the current tax rate on fuel runs at 60p per litre? We have the highest petrol prices in the European Union. If we cannot have a debate on this matter, will she, at the very least, see her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and tell him that in his next Budget he should lay off the long-suffering British motorist?

Harriet Harman: I am not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's point whether he wants higher or lower taxes on motoring—possibly both at the same time. This is obviously something he can raise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in questions. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman therefore supports the Mayor of London's proposals for a differential rate for gas-guzzling cars in the congestion charge.

John Spellar: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 648 on holocaust memorial day?
	[ That this House notes Holocaust Memorial Day is 27th January, the day the Nazi death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated; recognises the significance of this day and the importance of remembering and learning from the past especially when there are those who seek to denigrate and deny its significance; observes that the lessons of the Holocaust have not been learnt and racism, anti-semitism and intolerance continue in the UK and abroad; further observes that the international community has failed to prevent the occurrence of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq and now Darfur; thanks the City of Liverpool for hosting the national event and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for organising the day; supports 2008's theme, Imagine, remember, reflect and react; applauds organisations like the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) for their work and in particular recognises the impact the acclaimed HET visits to Auschwitz have had in shaping young minds; further notes that a Book of Commitment will be placed in the corridor between the hon. Members' Cloakroom and hon. Members' Staircase between 1430 and 1630, Monday 21st to Wednesday 23rd January; and encourages all hon. Members to sign it and mark a day that helps to ensure the memory of the Holocaust is kept alive to serve as a warning now and in the future.]
	Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating the Holocaust Educational Trust on its excellent work with young people? I suggest, either next week or the week after, a topical debate in which the House can express its view that such dreadful events should never happen again.

Harriet Harman: I agree with the point that my right hon. Friend makes through his question. It is very important that we have, as we do, a statutory requirement to teach children in our schools about the holocaust as part of the curriculum. The year before last, the Chancellor announced that the Government were providing a further £1 million to support the Holocaust Educational Trust's "Lessons from Auschwitz" course, which takes sixth-form students to Auschwitz. The trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust have made a big impact on educating and informing people of all ages and from all walks of life, to make sure that the holocaust is never forgotten.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On Members' pay, does the Leader of the House agree that if the proposed Lisbon treaty is ratified more powers would be transferred away from this House, and it would therefore be right for our pay to be reduced? Will she ask the Senior Salaries Review Body to recalculate its proposals in view of that reduction of powers? It would obviously be wrong for us to be paid more when our control over legislation and policy is reduced. The same thing should apply to ministerial salaries, particularly those of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise those points in debate either on Monday, on Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, or on Thursday, when we debate the SSRB's recommendations, or he can again synthesise the two points on Monday or Thursday.

Keith Vaz: One hundred and nine Members have now signed early-day motion 512 on police pay, and next Wednesday thousands of police officers will be marching through Westminster in support of their claim.
	[ That this House is disappointed by the failure of the Government to accept in full the recommendations of the Police Arbitration Tribunal police pay award; believes that the pay settlement should be backdated to 1st September; notes that the police are the front line in the fight against organised crime, terrorism and anti-social behaviour; recognises that their work puts them at great personal risk; further believes that this dispute over 0.6 per cent. difference is petty and needless; and calls upon the Government to reconsider its decision.]
	Given that the Leader of the House says that this is a listening Government, should not Parliament vote on this issue? Instead of a topical debate, may we have a topical vote on police pay?

Harriet Harman: The situation in law is that it is for the Home Secretary to determine the pay of police officers, having considered any recommendations from the police officers' negotiating machinery, which is what she has done. I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that the police have done, which we all support. However, we also recognise that we are in a difficult situation as regards the question of public sector pay. We have to ensure that inflation is low so that the cost of living remains low, and so that interest rates can be low, allowing the economy to remain strong, and allowing us to continue to invest in important public services, such as the police. That includes the provision of higher numbers of police and ensuring that higher pay rates can be sustained, year by year.

Mr. Speaker: Elfyn Llwyd.

Elfyn Llwyd: Oh! Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I was on another planet, too.
	Given the full answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on the question of Darfur, may we have a debate in Government time on the plight of those people?

Harriet Harman: I will consider the question of Darfur for a forthcoming topical debate. The House is always very concerned about Africa, and we are discussing Kenya this afternoon. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's question as a request for a further topical debate.

Anne Moffat: On the subject of pay, I would like to raise the issue of the national minimum wage, and the fact that employers are able to abuse it, particularly in the case of the lowest paid workers who work in restaurants and hotels. If they are given a tip when someone pays by credit card, that is used to supplement the national minimum wage. Could we have a debate to rectify that ridiculous anomaly?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that before this House introduced the national minimum wage by statute, she was a champion in her union for its implementation. She has now come to this House and said that it is important that we do more to enforce it. I will bring her points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, because he is presiding over a taskforce at the moment to ensure that we have tougher enforcement of that important law.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on special educational needs? Given the immense power of local authorities as the bodies that assess, decide on, pay for and, more often than not—through their in-house services—provide for children's special needs, but that the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families has considered the question of assessment and funding and argued for a number of mechanisms by which that link could be broken, is it not now timely that the House should have an opportunity to consider the issue? There are very large numbers of vulnerable children who are not getting what they need, for whom we have to cater.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know that the children's plan, which was announced to the House by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, places great importance on the provision for children with special educational needs. Indeed, it is drawing on the work of the hon. Gentleman in taking the matter forward. He raises an important point. It is not just a question of getting the right policy but of ensuring that it is implemented throughout every part of the country. There should not be a postcode lottery, but every family in which there is a child with special needs should have the right services and support, for both the child and the family.

Martin Salter: I welcome yesterday's statement by the Leader of the House on the SSRB report, particularly the intention to end once and for all the invidious practice of allowing MPs to vote on their own salaries. Will she clarify for the House the exact timetable for implementing the future framework for MPs salaries, and for the ending of our ability to vote ourselves a pay rise? It is important.

Harriet Harman: I shall set out the procedure and the timetable. Next Thursday, the House will be able to debate our proposals for the pay rate that will apply to us as Members of Parliament from April 2007 to April 2008. The House will also have before it a motion that the Government have tabled to establish the process of the review by Sir John Baker. It expresses the intent to come back to the House before it rises for the summer recess with the mechanics and procedure whereby we will never again have to do what is unacceptable both to Members and to members of the public—vote for our own pay increases.

Alistair Carmichael: May we have a short debate or statement on applying the EU emission trading scheme to lifeline flights to remote and peripheral communities? Everyone appears to agree that different rules should apply to lifeline flights, but the Government and the Commission do not seem able to agree about how that should be done. The matter is of great concern to my constituents, and it is becoming time-critical. May we have it discussed properly, in the open?

Harriet Harman: I know that that matter is of concern, and under discussion, in Government. I will bring it to the attention of the relevant Secretaries of State.

Fiona Mactaggart: May I suggest that the topical debate on 31 January should be about prosecuting rape cases? Successful prosecution for rape is scandalously low, and women are frightened by rape, especially when they see the sort of articles that appear in the newspapers today. May the House debate the matter? I believe that we can introduce proposals to increase the successful prosecution of rape cases.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an issue on which she has campaigned. It is a matter of concern for hon. Members of all parties. We have had a debate on rape in the past month or so, but of course we will consider it again as a topic for a future debate. Too many men still evade justice. However, we have made progress in the past 10 years. Since 1997, the number of convictions of men for rape has increased by 30 per cent. That has happened because we have toughened the law, improved protection for victims and witnesses and have a special team of prosecutors now backing the important work, especially of the Metropolitan police, on rape. However, I take my hon. Friend's point, and we will consider this as a subject for a future topical debate.

Richard Benyon: I apologise if I sound like a cracked record when I ask the Leader of the House yet again whether we can have a debate on post office closures—but that would allow me to raise the behaviour of Post Office Ltd, which has told a village shop owner in my constituency who is due to lose a post office in the shop, and wishes to replace it with a paypoint, that they will lose their compensation under the post office closure scheme.

Harriet Harman: Post offices have been debated recently in Westminster Hall, and the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity only half an hour ago to raise the subject in oral questions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Louise Ellman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which she dealt with my previous question about 25 per cent. cuts in physics departments in our universities and the implications for the Daresbury laboratory in the north-west. This week, documents were published under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which suggest that Ministers have been told by the Science and Technology Facilities Research Council about the implications of their financial allocation. May we have a statement on the true position, and on how the current problem will be rectified?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is a real champion of important science research facilities in Liverpool, and she has raised this matter several times in the House. I have been in touch with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills about the point that she made previously in business questions—and I know that she raised it with the Prime Minister, too. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills has written to her. If any further points arise from the extensive letter that he sent her, I know that she will have the opportunity to raise them directly with him again.

Nadine Dorries: Would it be possible to have a debate on the Floor of the House about Departments' interaction with local football clubs? Many of the supporters of Luton Town football club, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), have put together a bid, called 2020 Ltd, to save the club. Unfortunately, the bid may fail because of requirements by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and I know that other football clubs, such as Leeds, have suffered similar problems in the past. So will the right hon. and learned Lady consider a debate on football and Departments' interaction with local football clubs?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I can best respond by suggesting that the hon. Lady raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Jim Sheridan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make a statement on proposals to deny future Members of Parliament the same pension entitlement as the rest of us? Will she resist those oppositional—or opportunistic—proposals, and perhaps remind colleagues, especially those who are registered millionaires, that there is no compulsion to accept the pension entitlement, or, indeed, the salary?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has raised a point that will not be lost on Opposition Members— [Interruption.] The statements that the Leader of the Opposition makes for the sake of a quick headline grab might not necessarily get the support of Conservative Members. We shall see.

Nicholas Winterton: The European Union (Amendment) Bill is of huge constitutional importance to the country. Why has the Leader of the House not permitted two days' debate on Second Reading, so that more Back Benchers can be called?
	On topical debates, when will the Leader of the House allow a meaningful contribution from all parties so that there is more transparency about the choice of subjects for topical debate?

Harriet Harman: I think that the House can rest assured: my response to the question about the business for the following week will look pretty repetitive in the next few weeks, because we will have many hours of debating the European Union (Amendment) Bill on the Floor of the House. A whole day's debate for Second Reading of a Bill that has seven clauses and one schedule is perfectly adequate. We then have a day's debate on the procedure, followed by many days of discussion and clause-by-clause examination in Committee of the whole House. I assure hon. Members that we have ample time for debating the Bill.
	On the choice of topical debates, the hon. Gentleman knows that the process is new and we will review it in due course to ascertain how it has worked. The review will include the way in which we choose the subject. In the meantime, I encourage hon. Members to make more proposals for topical debates by e-mail or letter.

Andrew Love: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that Lebanon has been without a president since 23 November—nearly two months. During that time, there have been 12 postponements of a parliamentary vote for the president. The recent Arab League initiative has failed once again, so we are left with an unstable and dangerous position, which could easily spill over into the rest of the middle east. It is a critical issue. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make time for a debate so that we can ask Ministers not only what they are doing but—perhaps more important—what more they will do to bring the matter to a swift conclusion?

Harriet Harman: Instability in Lebanon and the wider middle east, which my hon. Friend raises, is of concern to the whole House. There will be a debate on the middle east next Thursday in Westminster Hall, and Ministers will be answering. That debate will be important, but it is by no means the last occasion on which we expect to discuss the matter in the House.

Edward Garnier: Could the Leader of the House provide for a debate in Government time in the near future about the Government's policy on the creation of new towns? There is a proposal for the siting of 10 large new towns—a figure that has been reduced from 57 candidate spots—and one of those sites is in my constituency, where it is proposed that a town of some 50,000 people should be plonked down. There has been no local input, and the issue is not one that can be decided upon by the local planning authority, still less the county council. It is a matter for the Government. It would be useful to have a debate in the House before February, when the decision will be made, at least so that my constituents could feel that they had had some democratic input into the decision.

Harriet Harman: On the specific issue in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, perhaps he will consider applying for an Adjournment debate. It is very important that we have more housing in this country, so that people's wish for a better home—a home that they can afford or that their children can move into when they grow up—can be fulfilled. Very many local authorities have applied for new towns, and for eco-towns in particular, to be developed in their areas. There is no question of a top-down approach having been taken, and of course there is widespread consultation. However, we must ensure that we have that extra housing, which is needed not by those who are already comfortably housed and well off, but by those who seek to improve their housing situation.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. and learned Friend will have read today's  Hansard report of yesterday's excellent debate in Westminster Hall on children with disabilities. The debate highlighted the fact that the £34 million allocated to Scotland as its share of the UK-wide allocation seems to have disappeared without trace into the Scottish Executive's coffers, presumably to fund some of the Scottish National party's pet policies, rather than being used for the purposes for which it was intended. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask one of her colleagues to raise the issue with the First Minister and to report back to the House on what has happened to the money?

Harriet Harman: I shall raise that issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. We all want to ensure—I have already adverted to this—that there is proper support for every child with a disability and for their family, wherever the child lives. National resources should be available in all parts of the United Kingdom, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend to look into the issue.

David Howarth: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on early-day motion 690, on the collapse of the trial against Derek Pasquill?
	[ That this House notes the collapse of the case against Derek Pasquill; believes that the law about official secrets should be based on preventing damage to the public interest rather than preventing embarrassment for the leading party; and calls for an enquiry into the case of Derek Pasquill and for a review of the Official Secrets Act 1989.]
	In particular, will she make time for a debate on the proposal for an inquiry into how the Foreign Office pursued Mr. Pasquill under the Official Secrets Act 1989, while all along holding documents that exonerated him? Does that not show the need for a thoroughgoing review of the official secrets legislation?

Harriet Harman: With regard to any individual case under the Official Secrets Act, the question whether a prosecution should be brought is initially for the Attorney-General to determine in the public interest. Thereafter, the prosecution is conducted independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. Whether to proceed with the prosecution is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service or the court to decide— [ Interruption. ] As for whether there should be a debate in the House on the case that the hon. Gentleman raised, I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office still has to consider whether disciplinary proceedings are necessary. It would therefore not be appropriate to discuss it in the House now.

Julie Morgan: When can we have a debate on lowering the voting age? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of my private Member's Bill, which aims to bring the voting age down to 16? Does she not agree that if we can engage young people at an earlier age, when they are still in schools and youth clubs, there is more likelihood that they will engage with politics—an engagement that will remain throughout their lives?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We cannot have a situation in which our democracy has dwindling legitimacy because voting is increasingly the preoccupation only of older people, with younger people having turned their backs on our democratic process. Too many young people are not registered to vote, and too many do not go out to vote even though they are registered to do so. The issue is of major concern to my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who I know will consider the proposals that my hon. Friend has put forward in her Bill.

George Young: The right hon. and learned Lady was the midwife of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which makes provision for a one-stop registration of MPs' interests. That provision can be activated only when the Government lay the relevant order. When do they plan to do so?

Harriet Harman: I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to write to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of that question, and to place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Phyllis Starkey: Last week Milton Keynes council voted to support proposals for a wind farm. Conservative councillors voted en bloc against the proposals, Labour councillors voted for them and, unsurprisingly, the Liberal Democrats split. Given the recent national report by the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—SERA—that found that Tory-controlled councils have an 82 per cent. rejection rate on wind farms, that Liberal Democrat authorities have a rate of 75 per cent. and that Labour authorities have a rate of just 36 per cent., will the Leader of the House consider making time for a debate specifically on wind power, so that the country can see who really supports renewable energy and who is just full of hot air?

Harriet Harman: That is a good suggestion for a topical debate. It is important that more of our energy be provided by renewable resources. We shall of course be considering the Energy Bill next week, although the question is not just what the words are, but what the actions are. I have noticed another habit developing, which is that the Leader of the Opposition says one thing, but his party in local councils does something completely different. The environment is a classic case in point.

Christopher Chope: Next week, Mr. Speaker, you have selected a one and a half hour debate in Westminster Hall on the highly contentious issue of the regional spatial strategy for the south-west. Can the Leader of the House say what role she envisages the Minister for the South West playing in that debate next Tuesday, and what other opportunities there will be for a debate in Government time about that contentious document?

Harriet Harman: The Minister for the South West is my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). We are developing the role of the regional Ministers— [ Laughter. ] Regional Ministers are a recent innovation. I think that they are doing a very good job on behalf of their regions and that we can build on that role. What we need to do next—we are looking at this in the Modernisation Committee—is to consider how to develop a system for regional accountability to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contribute to that inquiry.

Stephen Ladyman: This week a company based in Thanet called Grupo Antolin has closed its doors, with a significant loss of jobs. Since 1997 we have more than halved unemployment in Thanet, which is an incredible achievement. However, unemployment in Thanet stubbornly remains much higher than the national average. It is clear from yesterday's figures that there are about two dozen hot spots in the country where unemployment is a significantly worse problem than in other areas. Can we have a debate about how we can improve our ability to attract jobs to those unemployment hot spots?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the pockets of deprivation that can stubbornly remain, even in areas where the economy is going from strength to strength. He has also identified the fact that unemployment is often connected with a lack of skills. I know that he supports the work that the Government are doing both to bring more opportunities for training and apprenticeships into his region, and to raise the educational attainment of all children, by ensuring that no young person leaves school at 16, having already experienced the last moment when they will ever receive any education or training. I know that that is why my hon. Friend supports raising the education leaving age to 18.

John Leech: May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motions 702 and 707, regarding Arts Council funding? Early-day motion 702 states:
	 [That this House condemns plans by the Arts Council to cut funding to Queer Up North; recognises the excellent work that organisation has done, including tackling homophobic bullying through performances of F.I.T. at local schools; notes with concern that funding cuts will lead to the cancellation of the 2008 festival in Manchester and all future touring plans, end its unique programme of work for young people and result in the immediate closure of the organisation; and therefore calls on the Arts Council to overturn its decision.]
	Will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate on the funding cuts by the Arts Council to a large number of organisations throughout the country, including LipService and Queer Up North in Manchester, which threaten the existence of those organisations?

Harriet Harman: I shall bring those points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. With regard to the Arts Council, the arts budget under this Government has increased consistently year on year and is set to increase again. In the latest Arts Council announcement, 80 new projects are to be funded. We cannot have a situation in which once something has been funded by the Arts Council, it is funded in perpetuity at the expense of any new projects. It is always difficult for projects that lose their funding, but that is happening not because of cuts in funding to the Arts Council but because of a determination to fund new projects. However, I will raise the points that the hon. Gentleman has made with the Secretary of State.

David Drew: I associate myself with those who have called for a debate on Darfur.
	My right hon. and learned Friend will know that much of my constituency is again under water or threatened by floods. May we have a debate to consider whether the planning system could be changed so that planning permissions could be rescinded where there was a considerable threat of flooding? The Planning Bill is now going through the House. Will the Government take note of the fact—of which we need to take notice—that we are now facing very difficult circumstances, and living in a different world?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be answering the questions of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next Wednesday. I am sure that all those points will be under consideration, including those that my hon. Friend has just raised on behalf of his constituents, and those raised by other hon. Members whose constituents have suffered from floods and are still recovering from them, and want to ensure that they are protected from flooding in the future.

Alistair Burt: On 15 November last year, the Public Accounts Committee published a highly critical report on the handling by the Department for Communities and Local Government of the Thames Gateway project. To date, there has been no oral or written statement by the Government in response—and in early December, the Minister for Housing sacked the chief executive of the Thames Gateway, whom she herself had appointed barely a year before. May we have a debate on the mishandling of the Thames Gateway project by the DCLG—and can that debate also cover the shameful scapegoating of a public servant by the Minister responsible?

Harriet Harman: The Government will consider their response to the Select Committee's report, and will publish that response in due course.

David Chaytor: The most successful Government policy for pensioners has been the free bus pass for local travel. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that millions of pensioners are eagerly anticipating the fact that that scheme will go nationwide in April. Will she find time for a debate on free bus travel for young people? In the context of the extension of the education participation age, and the increasing number of young people who will need to travel as a result, does she agree that we need to review the very variable arrangements for concessionary travel that apply around the country? In London, it is free, but in Manchester—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Harriet Harman: That is well worth consideration. The trail has been blazed by the Mayor of London, who is about to extend to pensioners free travel passes that are valid not only for off-peak times but throughout the day, having already extended that facility to young people. It is a pity that when the opportunity for such arrangements exists, some councils drag their feet. It is important for older people to get out and socialise, but it is also important for younger people to get out and extend their training opportunities. I will raise my hon. Friend's point with the Secretary of State for Transport.

Desmond Swayne: Will the Leader of the House arrange for, at the very least, a written statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the reappointment, or otherwise, of the official verderer of the New Forest, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I fear that there has been some skulduggery?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Harriet Harman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman work out what the official parliamentary term is, and then table a written question.

Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to join me and the long-suffering fans of Luton Town football club in supporting the successful bid by a fans-based company to get the club out of administration? There is, however, a continuing threat to the club, largely as a result of the rules of the football league in respect of the repayment of debts. The matter has been referred to the Minister for Sport, but may I press my right hon. Friend for a debate on behalf of those of us who have the long-term interests of Luton Town football club at heart, and on behalf of the many other ailing clubs in this situation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has an Adjournment debate on this matter.

Harriet Harman: I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion of Luton Town football club, and I will bring her comments to the attention of my ministerial colleagues.

Andrew MacKay: The Leader of the House failed—inadvertently, I am sure—to answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about Northern Rock. May I give her the opportunity to do so now? I am sure that she will agree that the House has an obligation to taxpayers, and that when billions of pounds of their money are floating around, we need to have figures and answers. May we have a statement next week from the Chancellor—or better still, from the Prime Minister, who evaded these questions yesterday?

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister answered questions in the House yesterday on Northern Rock—[Hon. Members: "No!"] He answered questions yesterday on Northern Rock. But there is one question that remains unanswered. Our position remains absolutely clear— [ Interruption. ] I have stated this in business questions before. We have to make sure that we have a stable economy, and that the instability that came out of the American sub-prime market did not, through Northern Rock, infect the rest of the financial services industry in this country. So far, that has certainly not happened. We have said what we are doing about this—but what the Opposition have done is to say that they approve of what we are doing one day, and that they disapprove of it the next.

John Hayes: May we have a debate on the plight of NEETs—young people not in education, employment or training? Their number has soared since 1997 to more than 1 million. Such a debate would give Members the opportunity to decide whether the principal reason for that increase is unrestricted immigration, which means that more than half of all new jobs go to foreigners, or the difficulties in the apprenticeship system, illustrated by figures published in December which show that the number of apprentices at levels 2 and 3 has gone down.

Harriet Harman: There are 600,000 vacancies in the economy. The problem for young people who are not in education, employment or training is usually that they do not have the right training and skills to get into those jobs. We want to continue our programme of expansion for apprenticeships and for further and higher education, but we also recognise that we need to start early. That is why we launched the Sure Start and pre-school programmes, so that entrenched intergenerational deprivation can be tackled.

Richard Younger-Ross: Further to the Minister's response about a one-stop shop for Members' declarable interests, would it be possible to have a statement on the workings of the declaration of Members' interests, with particular regard to whether there would be any benefit in trying to resolve the contradictions that Members are sometimes told, or in having a system of pro forma forms that would make it easier for Members and their staff to ensure that Members submit their declarations in good time?

Harriet Harman: The registrar and officials who work on the Register of Members' Interests do all they can when their advice is sought to explain to Members how they should go about registration. There is a question about the overlapping rules relating to the Register of Members' Interests, electoral administration and, indeed, the ministerial code, which is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice.

Julian Lewis: When the Government insisted on setting up a national park authority for the New Forest, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and I articulated the concern of many locally that the authority of the court of verderers as protectors of the forest would be undermined. The fact that that has not yet happened has been largely due to the fine performance of the official verderer, Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre. May we have a statement by the appropriate Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the reappointment of the official verderer, who is willing to be reappointed but whom we gather may not be reappointed for reasons not unconnected with the existence of the national park authority?

Harriet Harman: If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise questions about the New Forest national park authority or verderers, I suggest he table a written question to the relevant Minister.

Mark Harper: I want to take the Leader of the House back to the question and answer about organ donation and putting the House first. Given that the Government published the first report of the organ donation taskforce this week, would it not have been better if the Health Secretary or the Prime Minister had made an oral statement to the House, in which they could have set out their views about presumed consent, rather than brief a newspaper earlier in the week?

Harriet Harman: As I said in my answer to the earlier question, the Government have not changed their policy about presumed consent, although Ministers and I agree that there should be further debate on the issue. We have set up the taskforce and informed the House about it. We have also made it clear that we accept the taskforce's recommendations, particularly those relating to organisational change to ensure that consent for organ donation is put sensitively to relatives so that those who want their relatives' organs to be donated have the opportunity to say so. We have not changed our policy on presumed consent, but we all agree that there should be a debate on the way forward.

British Council (Russia)

David Miliband: With permission, I should like to make a statement on the Russian Government's actions against the British Council in Russia. The House will recall that in October 2007 the Russian Government threatened to close the British Council's operations outside Moscow from 1 January 2008. That was confirmed on 12 December and again last week with the threat of a series of administrative measures against the British Council, including tax measures in St Petersburg and visa restrictions against British Council staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg. The Russians also threatened to take measures against the British Council in Moscow, up to and including the removal of accreditation of British Council staff working in Russia.
	On Tuesday this week, the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser held what we believed were productive talks in Moscow about a range of international and bilateral issues, including the British Council. Yet on the same day, the Russian Government exerted further pressure on the British Council. The Russian security services summoned more than 20 locally engaged members of British Council staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg one by one for interviews. Ten members of staff were interviewed late at night in their homes after calls by the Russian tax police. Questioning ranged from the institutional status of the British Council to personal questions about the health and welfare of family pets. These Russian citizens have chosen to offer their skills and hard work to promote cultural contact between the people of Russia and the UK. As a result, they have been the subject of blatant intimidation from their own Government.
	I think that the whole House will agree that such actions are reprehensible, not worthy of a great country and contrary to the letter and spirit of the legal framework under which the British Council operates—notably international law, including the Vienna conventions and the UK-Russia 1994 bilateral agreement on cultural co-operation, which Russia has ratified.
	Russia has failed to show any legal reasons under Russian or international law why the British Council should not continue to operate. It has also failed to substantiate its claims that the British Council is avoiding paying tax. The British Council is in fact registered for tax in Russia and has complied with all requests of the tax authorities in respect of its activities. Instead of taking legal action against the British Council, the Russian Government have resorted to intimidation of its staff. I am confident that the whole House will share the anger and dismay felt by this Government at the actions of the Russian Government. We saw similar actions during the cold war but thought, frankly, they had been put behind us.
	The British Council's first priority is, rightly, the safety of its own staff, yet the actions of the Russian Government have made it impossible for staff to go about their work in a normal way. British Council offices in Yekaterinburg and St Petersburg have been prevented from operating, so the British Council has, with great regret, taken the decision to suspend its operations in those two cities. The council is making an announcement to this effect as I speak. The staff concerned will continue to be supported while the council considers its next steps.
	There has already been strong international condemnation of Russia's actions. Following my conversation last night with the Slovenian Foreign Minister in his capacity as presidency of the EU, an EU presidency statement has just been issued on behalf of all European Governments. The statement makes it clear that the EU is
	"very concerned at Russia's demand to close British Council regional offices"
	and
	"deeply regrets the harassment of British Council staff"
	and other measures taken. It calls on Russia to
	"allow the British Council to operate freely and effectively in Russia".
	The Government of the United States have issued a statement of support, calling for the British Council to be able to continue its good work in Russia, and the Canadian Government are also expressing their concerns in Moscow about these developments. I am grateful for the many expressions of support that the British Council has received from Russians who have benefited from working with it.
	The Russian Foreign Minister stated publicly on 14 December what the Russian Government had been saying to us in private—that their attacks on the British Council were linked to the Litvinenko affair. I announced to the House on 16 July a list of measures that the Government had decided to adopt in response to Russia's failure to co-operate with our efforts to secure justice for Alexander Litvinenko. These included introducing visa restrictions for Russian officials travelling to the UK and suspending our visa consultations. The House can rest assured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those measures will continue to be administered rigorously.
	We regard as entirely separate the issues surrounding Mr. Litvinenko's murder and the activities of the British Council to build links between British and Russian schools and universities, to support English language teaching in Russia and Russian studies in the UK and to promote the best of British drama, writing, music and art. Nor do we believe that cultural activities should become a political football. In fact, educational and cultural activities are important ways of bringing people together. That is why I have decided not to take similar action against Russia's cultural activities in the UK—for example, by sending back Russian masterpieces scheduled for show at the Royal Academy or by taking measures against the two Russian diplomats at the Russian embassy who are dedicated to cultural work. We have nothing to fear from these contacts; we welcome and encourage them.
	The immediate cost to the Russian people of the Russian Government's actions is their lack of access to the benefits of British Council activity. The longer-term cost is their country's standing in the world as a responsible international player. The British Council will continue its work in Moscow, meeting the demand from as many as possible of the 1.25 million Russian citizens who used the council's services last year.
	The British Council's experience in Russia is not repeated in any of the more than 100 British Council operations elsewhere in the world. Russia's actions therefore raise serious questions about her observance of international law, as well as about the standards of behaviour she is prepared to adopt towards her own citizens. That can only make the international community more cautious in its dealings with Russia in international negotiations and more doubtful about its existing international commitments.
	Russia remains an important international player in addressing key global issues and challenges, including climate change and energy security, as well as others such as Iran and Kosovo, but I hope the whole House will agree with me that Russia's actions against the British Council are a stain on Russia's reputation and standing that will have been noted by countries all around the world. I will continue to keep the House informed of developments.

William Hague: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Let me say at the outset that, across the House, we join him in deploring the Soviet-era tactics employed against legitimate cultural contact—tactics that we trust will be counter-productive from the Russian point of view and are deeply offensive from the British point of view.
	I think the whole House will agree that the work of the British Council is invaluable in building mutually beneficial relationships between people in the United Kingdom and those in other countries. The work of the British Council in Russia has been undertaken in that spirit, involving in the last year—I think—almost half a million Russians in British Council projects visiting exhibitions, plays and films organised by the British Council, and the setting up recently of 40 new joint degree programmes between Russian and United Kingdom universities. As the Foreign Secretary said, the harassment and intimidation of the staff doing that work is not acceptable to the Government, and I think it true to say that it is not acceptable to any of us in the House.
	We wholly support the Government's decision not to retaliate against other cultural exchanges. We trust, however, that the Foreign Secretary will convey to the Russian Government the united view in the House that while we are open in the future to a better relationship with Russia, such actions, and Moscow's wider response to the Litvinenko murder, will not produce such a relationship. In an interview with the BBC, to which the Foreign Secretary referred, the Russian Foreign Minister linked the order to close the British Council offices with the United Kingdom's expulsion of four Russian diplomats last summer, but an attack on an institution that is valuable to Russia and valuable to the United Kingdom serves no worthwhile objective whatsoever.
	Let me now ask the Foreign Secretary some specific questions. What is the number of Russian staff currently employed by the British Council in the three offices in Russia, and have the whereabouts and safety of all of them been established? Have any documents or items of equipment been seized from the employees of the British Council? The Government in Moscow have accused the British Council of operating illegally. Will the Foreign Secretary clarify what constitutes the legal basis of the British Council's presence in Russia? Is the 1994 UK-Russia agreement on co-operation in education, science and culture still legally binding?
	Russian Foreign Ministry officials have made much of the fact that cultural organisations from other countries, including France and Germany, are, they say, complying with Russian law as non-governmental organisations, and operate without difficulties. Under what arrangements are they operating, and how do they differ from the arrangements of the British Council?
	Russian officials have been quoted as saying that the British Council's Moscow offices could be targeted next if no agreement on the status of cultural organisations and the availability of British visas for Russian diplomats is reached. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether Russia has sought an agreement on the status of cultural organisations, and have any other British institutions been subjected to similar pressures?
	The British Council is a founding member of the European Union National Institutes for Culture. Recently a cluster of national institutes has been established in Russia, chaired by the British Council. Has the work in that cluster been affected by these events?
	What assessment—this is important—has the Foreign Secretary made of the effect that the dispute has had on co-operation between our two countries in other areas? There are vital issues, such as Iran and the future status of Kosovo, which we want to see resolved, preferably in agreement with Russia. Has the issue of the British Council affected British-Russian discussion of those vital subjects?
	The Foreign Secretary said that at the same time as the holding of productive talks in Russia earlier this week between the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser and Russian counterparts, the pressure on the British Council was intensified. Does he think that that indicates a division of opinion within the Russian Government, and does he think that the good intentions expressed by Russia's foreign policy spokesman are being frustrated by its security services or by others?
	Ironically, the basis for close co-operation between Russia and the United Kingdom is very strong. Our trade and investment links are growing, United Kingdom investment in Russia is huge, there remains considerable common ground on foreign policy, and there is a good basis for long-term co-operation. At the same time, however, harassment, intimidation and bullying of people including our ambassador, as well as the British Council, are unacceptable. They harm Russia's standing in the world, unnecessarily weaken the links between our countries, and will make opinion in this country not more emollient towards the Russian authorities, but more resolved not to be bullied by them.

David Miliband: I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary's strong support for the Government's actions. He said at the outset that he believed the Russian actions were counter-productive, and at the end of his remarks emphasised the wide areas in which we can co-operate with the Russian authorities. He is absolutely right about the counter-productive nature of the actions that have been taken. The only losers are Russian citizens, and the reputation of the Russian Government. It is important to stress that there has not been a contagion from our disagreement about the British Council to areas of common concern in respect of Iran and Kosovo—although, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, we do not hold the same position on Kosovo as the Russian authorities.
	There was only one item in the right hon. Gentleman's observations in respect of which there may be some room for confusion. I believe that the 500,000 Russians to whom he referred are those who use the offices outside Moscow. The 1.25 million figure that I gave related to Russian citizens using all the British Council offices, including those in Moscow.
	Let me run through some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions. I referred to the 20 members of British Council staff outside Moscow as the number called in for questioning. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the number of British Council staff who operate in the Moscow office. No documents have been taken, to our knowledge. As for the legality of the British Council's operations, yes, the UK-Russia agreement of 1994 remains in force. The UK Government have been keen for some years to update it and move it forward, but we have not encountered a willing response from the Russian authorities. That is the bilateral basis, but there is also the international basis. The Vienna conventions, for instance, provide an important basis in international law.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about other countries. As the Russian Government have never made clear to us what is illegal or improper about the British Council's activities outside Moscow, it is very hard to draw a comparison with the activities of other Governments, although I think the European Union's statement and the alacrity and keenness of Governments to sign it show that there is widespread concern around Europe that this constitutes a threat to all Europe's cultural institutions. EUNIC, the body to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, brings together European countries on that basis. It will meet in Vienna this afternoon, and our delegate there will certainly make strong representations. I hope that the organisation will be able to follow up the strong statement that it made last year on the basis of what has happened today.
	There have been threats, veiled and otherwise, about the Moscow operation. As of now it is operating normally, and obviously we want that to continue. I would report back to the House if it did not.
	At the end of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman raised a tantalising question that deserves further discussion: the question whether there is unanimity within the Russian Government about the wisdom of their operations, or whether the actions of the FSB outside Moscow are in the best interests of Russia and its people. I think it important to say that, at this stage, we have not found any part of the Russian Government to be yielding in its defence of the Government's current actions, but I believe that there are many sensible people in that Government who will come to realise that, far from being a demonstration of strength, the actions that they have taken are today a demonstration of weakness.

Denis MacShane: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's robust statement. We must stand up to this bullying by the bear. It is not just the British Council and our fine ambassador Tony Brenton who have experienced harassment that is unacceptable, and it is not just the Vienna conventions that are threatened. Russia is not respecting its international convention obligations on the energy charter, or the reduction provisions in the conventional forces in Europe treaty. It is gutting the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe of its main business. It is even seeking to take control of the Council of Europe, with the help, sadly, of some Conservative Members, who are now fellow travellers of the Kremlin.
	It is not just the unity of the House that matters. It is the unity of Europe that is important. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to work with our European partners, and does he agree that it would be helpful if everyone in the House supported the unity of Europe on this matter?

David Miliband: I certainly agree with the latter part of my right hon. Friend's contribution. The united European response is important in this regard, as is the united international response. My right hon. Friend was right to say that there is a range of concerns about Russian activities internationally, and he was also right to mention the harassment of the ambassador, which is obviously unacceptable as well.
	The one part of our relationship that has not been interfered with—perhaps I should have mentioned this in response to the questions of the shadow Foreign Secretary—is trade and economic links. We have had no reports of interventions on, or interruptions of, such ties. Obviously, that is important, but my right hon. Friend makes a significant point about the number of fronts on which the Russian Government are currently arguing and are at variance with the international community, and I know that Foreign Ministers, Prime Ministers and Presidents are actively discussing that.

Edward Davey: It is clear from the Foreign Secretary's tone that he very much regrets having to make this statement, but I thank him for keeping the House informed and for his efforts to keep Opposition parties informed.
	The Foreign Secretary will not be surprised to learn that we strongly support the Government's actions, particularly in securing the safety and well-being of the British Council staff. Does he agree that the Russian authorities' bully-boy tactics are making them look increasingly ridiculous in the eyes of the international community? When the British Council is successfully continuing its excellent work in places such as Zimbabwe and Myanmar, is it not utterly self-defeating and shameful for the Russian authorities to be acting in this way over educational and cultural links?
	It is understandable that the Government do not wish this situation to escalate, but will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the British Council intends to do in respect of the information and logistical support it has previously been able to provide to Russian students applying to UK universities, not least as they often come from the families of high-ranking Russians? More broadly, is it not now even more vital and urgent that we build stronger common positions with our EU partners on a range of issues relating to Russia? In an uncertain world of terrorist threats and failed states, it is particularly irresponsible of the Russian Government to sour our relations, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary can assure the House that we will redouble our efforts to dissuade the Russians from their cold war-like tendencies.

David Miliband: I welcome both aspects of the hon. Gentleman's comments—his determination that we emphasise our common interests with Russia, and our determination to stand up for the values we believe in. I associate myself wholly with that. I know that his concern for British Council staff will be valued, and I thank him for that; cross-party concern for their welfare is important.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the Russian Government had made themselves look ridiculous in their attacks on the British Council, and he made the point about the British Council's activities in Zimbabwe and Burma. In my question and answer session with the Foreign Affairs Committee in December, I suggested that the Russian Government's activities put them on a par, at least in their treatment of the British Council, with what was going on in Burma. I now regrettably inform the House that the situation in Russia is unique: it is worse than in Burma in respect of the British Council. The hon. Gentleman is right that in many capitals around the world there is incomprehension at the Russian authorities' actions. When I attended the European Council in December, just after the Russian authorities' first announcement, there was incomprehension—and, I am sorry to say, a fair degree of ridicule, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, because the British Council operates well in all such countries.
	On UK logistical and other support for university entrants, the Moscow office will continue to be a base for such work, and that will continue without fear or favour. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the development of an EU common policy on Russia across a range of areas, notably energy, must preoccupy the EU. As I was able to report to the House in the autumn, a significant section of the September meeting of European Foreign Ministers was devoted to taking a more strategic view of our relationship with Russia.

Derek Wyatt: If there were a Nobel prize for soft diplomacy, the British Council should win it every year, and I say as chairman of the all-party group on the British Council that what has gone on in Russia is shameful and shocking. Will the Secretary of State consider taking legal action in the courts in St. Petersburg and Moscow to make sure that we set the standard, because we should say, "This is legal; let's prove it's legal and embarrass them further"?

David Miliband: We are in a Catch-22, because although the Russian authorities keep on denouncing what they call the "illegal activities" of the British Council they never say what the illegal activities are, and it is very difficult for someone to prove that they are not doing something illegal if they are not charged with doing something illegal. Therefore, although I associate myself wholeheartedly with the spirit of my hon. Friend's question, he will understand if I am a bit cautious about pledging to take what he proposes forward.

Mark Pritchard: The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to say that the intimidation of British Council staff, whether diplomatic or locally engaged, is completely unacceptable, and I welcome the statement from our European partners. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is a great deal of difference between strong leadership and aggressive leadership in Russia, and that the latter is doing Russia's international reputation huge damage?

David Miliband: We would all expect every country to stand up for its interests, but what we cannot understand is a country doing damage to its interests, which is what is happening. That is not evidence of the sort of strong leadership that I—and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman—believe in.

Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the first overseas visits in which I took part as a Member of this House was to the Soviet Union in the early '80s, in a delegation led by the late Lord Whitelaw and Denis Healey? We had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Gromyko, from which three lessons emerged: that we wanted improved diplomatic relations; that cultural exchanges were important; and that transparency was in our mutual interests. Given the standing of the British Council and the support it has not only in this House but throughout Great Britain and elsewhere, can we encourage those who currently speak for Russia to accept the wisdom of Mr. Gromyko, and agree that mistakes have been made and that what they have done in the past week, particularly in harassing staff, is a big mistake, but that they can correct it?

David Miliband: I did not know about my right hon. Friend's visit—

Keith Simpson: The Foreign Secretary was still at school then.

David Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that suggestion, but I think that I had just about left school at that stage.
	I am sure that the whole House will want to know more about that visit in due course. I hope that the reaction in this country and around the world, and the ongoing reaction that will continue as people come to terms with what has happened, will bring home to the Russian authorities that this is doing them no good. That is the fundamental point: we are arguing that this is against Russian interests.
	In the end, the British Council cannot operate in a country where the host Government is not willing to consent to its presence in particular places. The British Council operates all around the world because all sorts of Governments of all sorts of stripes consent to the presence of British Council offices in their cities. I am confident that the Russians' actions will not send a signal that others should take on the British Council; in fact, I think that many others will come to realise the value of what the British Council does.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members are seeking to catch my eye. May I appeal for one brief question, and perhaps a reasonably brief response from the Secretary of State?

Nigel Evans: I concur with everything that the Foreign Secretary has said. The British Council is one of the great sources of information about education and culture abroad, and it should never be a political football. We usually award about 45 Chevening scholarships to young Russian scholars every year. Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that with the suspension of the Yekaterinburg and St. Petersburg British Council depots, young people from those areas will not be disadvantaged in fresh applications for a scholarship this year?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and as I tried to make clear in my statement we are determined to make sure that the ongoing work of the British Council in Moscow will continue to reach out as widely as possible throughout Russia, to minimise any impact on people who want to come and study here or engage with the United Kingdom.

Linda Gilroy: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary agrees that the greatest threat facing the world is climate change, and towards the end of his statement he mentioned Russia's important position on that issue. Will assure the House that the recent bilateral talks on energy efficiency and climate change will not be jeopardised by recent actions?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The irony of the situation is that in December my special representative on climate change visited Russia and had good meetings with the Russian authorities, and our discussions on climate change are moving forward more productively than they have done in the recent past. I can report some progress on that score at least.

Julian Lewis: Can the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that the intelligence relationship that we must presume has developed between Russia and the United Kingdom since September 2001 in dealing with the threat of un-Islamic extremism worldwide will not be undermined by the permafrost that has sadly set in between Russia and ourselves recently?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we never comment on such matters. I have made it clear that we do not see any grounds for taking this cultural attack into other spheres.

Mark Lazarowicz: This incident underlines the importance of the European Union working together on such issues. What specific steps does the Foreign Secretary intend to take to ensure that we continue to get a united EU response on this issue? We must make it clear to the Russians that what they are doing jeopardises their relationships with not only the UK, but the entire European Union.

David Miliband: The statement that has been issued today is clear, coherent and strong, and it is important that it has been made so quickly. As I said, the EU Foreign Ministers discussed the need for a more coherent common approach to Russia across a range of areas at their informal meeting in September, and that has now been followed up in a range of matters, including energy, which is probably the most important one. If the European Union wants to be respected by Russia, it must work in a way that gains respect, and that means working more closely together in a co-operative way.

Robert Goodwill: The spark that seems to have ignited this tinderbox in the British Council in Yekaterinburg and St. Petersburg is the status of activities described as commercial, such as language courses. What proportion of the British Council's activities could be described as in any way commercial? The resumption of purely cultural activities, which could not be criticised by the Russians, might be a way forward.

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to nail this one. The British Council used to operate exams, which were alleged to be, quote unquote, commercial. It never accepted that they were of a commercial nature, but it none the less suspended all its exam-based operations to ensure that there was no excuse for Russian action against it. Therefore, the answer to his question is zero.

David Winnick: Does not all that has occurred demonstrate to a large extent that the days of the KGB seem to be coming back? Would it not be wise of the Russian authorities to bear in mind that having lost one cold war, they are most unlikely to win another?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with wisdom and experience in these matters. None of us wants the memories and the eerie echoes of earlier times to come back. I know that the Russian people do not want them to return either, and that is the most important part of this.

Oliver Heald: May I welcome the Secretary of State's statement? Does he agree that the decision not to retaliate against Russian cultural interests shows, and is a recognition of, the deep desire in this country to learn more about the Russian people and their culture? Does he agree that that is in stark contrast to the sort of threats that we are hearing from Moscow, for example, which has described the fact that it is keeping open the British Council in Moscow as a gesture of goodwill?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When I came to this House today, I wondered whether or not people would say that we should have tried to retaliate in some way. The united view across the House that lowering ourselves to that level would do us no good and would be a tremendous own goal speaks positively about the instincts of hon. Members on both sides. I welcome both what he has said and the opportunity to put this point on the record: the Russians are doing something that is against their interests and which we deplore—we certainly deplore the intimidation of the staff. We look forward to the day when the Russians see that learning more about other cultures is in all our interests.

Mark Hendrick: The harassment of British Council Staff by the FSB—Russia's federal security services—is clearly outrageous. It would seem that all this is because this Government had the temerity to ask for a murder suspect to be extradited. My right hon. Friend has spoken about the coherent position held by the EU. Does he have any view about, or could he foresee, further international action, perhaps through the offices of the UN?

David Miliband: The incredulity that I discussed in answering the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, is widespread. The international culture institutes, not only the European ones, but other international ones, will want to examine carefully their reaction to this matter, notwithstanding the fact that we do not want culture to become a political football. It is important that we do not end up in an escalating war of either words or actions on this issue. The losers are the Russians. We deplore what they have done and look forward to the day when they see the error of their ways.

Gregory Barker: As someone in this House who regards himself as a particular friend of that great country, may I say that the current actions of its Government are appalling, shocking and exasperating? Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House about any strategy or additional resources being deployed to help the thousands of Russians who benefit from contact with the British Council every year? Is there a strategy in the cities where the offices are being closed? Are resources being deployed, either online or via distance learning, to help those engaged with current projects and courses?

David Miliband: Until now, the focus has obviously been on keeping the offices open, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the online work of the British Council is burgeoning. It offers access irrespective of whether there is an office in someone's home city. I am sure that we will want to use such techniques as widely as possible to ensure that the open access that has been a feature of the British Council's work through its physical presence is also a feature of its work through its online presence.

Nigel Griffiths: When I visited the British Council in Russia, it was the young Russians themselves who told me of the great value of the British Council in engendering a spirit of not only education and culture but friendship between our two nations. Will my right hon. Friend ask his Russian counterpart to listen to those young Russians, to pursue this matter in a message and spirit of friendship, and to end the hostilities now?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The good thing about this, if there is one, is that I do not think that British people will take against Russian people as a result of it; they will see these actions as being in no way symptomatic of the ordinary Russian citizen's interest in furthering friendly relations with this country.

Derek Conway: The Foreign Secretary will doubtless be encouraged by the support that he has received from both sides of the House for not only his position but that of the superb British Council. Is he aware that many members of the Russian Duma are part of their non-voting delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly? Has he had the opportunity to discuss with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is the excellent leader of Britain's delegation, whether or not something could be done through that forum to try to lower the temperature of relations a little?

David Miliband: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I have not had the chance to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend yet. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Parliamentarians meet not only through NATO, but through a range of other international forums. As it happens, two weeks ago, I met a member of the Russian Duma who was having dinner with a member of the Conservative party here in the Palace. Those sorts of Parliament to Parliament and parliamentarian to parliamentarian links are an important way in which we can try to bring home to important people in Russia the fact that what Russia is doing is against its own national interest and is not a wise way to proceed.

Ann Cryer: If it should be that the British Council can no longer continue its good work in Russia in the long-term, could consideration be given to a new outpost in Mirpur, where the British Council would be appreciated? In the long-term, such an outpost could help with the integration of the Pakistani community in many of our northern towns and cities.

David Miliband: There is as yet, thank goodness, no real and present threat to the British Council's operations throughout Russia. We do not yet face the prospect of the British Council closing across Russia: we still have the Moscow office. I shall be certain to draw the attention of the chief executive and chairman of the British Council to the expansion plans that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Paul Farrelly: The Russian actions are ridiculous and the Foreign Secretary is right not to engage in a cultural tit for tat. President Putin may also be frustrated by the presence of certain Russian billionaires in London. Indeed, the Kremlin may have memories of the actions of US and UK banks and brokers who also profited greatly, in and out of the country, from the Yeltsin sell-off. But the British Council is entirely different: it is there to foster much needed long-term relationships. I agree with my right hon. Friend's closing statement that, far from making Russia look stronger, the attack on the British Council and its staff makes it look very weak in the eyes of the international community.

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. It is one that I hope that we can try to take forward in imaginative ways as we try to move on from this very difficult situation.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will know that the British Council has recently established a British Council office in Algeria and is seeking to establish itself in very difficult countries all over the world. It is a testament to the British Council that it has staff who are prepared to take the personal risks associated with the job. I am particularly heartened to hear my right hon. Friend's comments in relation to those contracts that have already been established between the British Council and a range of very difficult countries and I would encourage him to look further at renegotiating those contracts and extending them to reaffirm our commitment and our joint approaches in those nations to develop a mutual respect for our individual cultures and, therefore, consolidate those cultures in this country.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I have only one quibble. That is, of course, that at every stage it is for the British Council, as an independent organisation, to negotiate its contracts. I will certainly convey to the British Council her strong view, and I hope that she understands that the operational decisions are for the British Council itself. One of the things that we have tried to emphasise at every stage of this affair is that the British Council sets its own priorities. Although it is funded by the taxpayer, it makes its own decisions about how it moves forward.

Chris Bryant: Russia is a great nation and we have had strong economic relations with that country ever since the founding of the Muscovy Trading Company in the 16th century, and strong cultural relations since Peter the Great made his first state visit back in the 17th century. Notwithstanding the fact that nobody in this House wants to ruin those strong relations, I hope that the Foreign Secretary is making it extremely clear that there is a strong sense of anger in this House and this country at the despicable actions of the last few days and at the sustained level of attack on independent journalists and organisations, and on many non-governmental organisations—not only the British Council.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with real expertise on this question and has contributed a lot to my understanding and that of the House about some of the things that are going on in Russia. He makes an important wider point, which is that a decent society depends on strong, independent institutions in civic society, across politics, the media, the economy and the judiciary. It is very important that the drive towards such standards applies to all countries around the world because they are the best guarantor of the stability that we all seek.

Topical debates
	 — 
	Kenya

Meg Munn: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Kenya.
	I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the topic of Kenya, following the Foreign Secretary's statement last week. At that time, thousands had been displaced from their homes, hundreds killed and the international community was responding to the growing humanitarian crisis. The Foreign Secretary called on Kenyan leaders to be ready to engage in a credible mediation process and he warned that if they failed to compromise, those leaders would forfeit the confidence, goodwill and support of the Kenyan people and the international community. That warning still applies today.
	Kenya remains tense and unpredictable. What began as politically motivated protest has changed in some areas to redress of old grievances between ethnic groups. We now know that at least 700 people were killed in the immediate post-election violence and that number is likely to grow as more bodies are discovered. While the political stand-off continues, ethnic tensions increase and the more divided the country becomes. Up to 250,000 people remain displaced from their homes, and there is little sign that they will be able to return soon.

Andy Reed: Does the Minister agree that while it is vital that we put political pressure on those involved in the violence, the people who suffer most in such circumstances, as always, are those facing the consequences of the humanitarian disaster? Will she ensure that while we are putting political and financial pressure on the Kenyan Government, humanitarian aid always gets through to those who need it most on the ground? I know that that is a difficult balance to strike.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I can give him the assurance that we are working very closely with the Department for International Development on precisely those issues.
	As I was saying, as well as the displaced persons, the National Association of Churches in Kenya estimates that two thirds of slum dwellers in Nairobi, more than 2 million people, have been negatively affected by the violence and the continuing instability. That includes those who have lost family members, their homes or their livelihoods. The splits in Kenyan society are deepening. We condemn without reservation all acts of violence; those acts of violence that have an ethnic motivation are especially disturbing given the risk that they run of escalating tension. It is incumbent on all to respect the legal framework and human rights, whether those rights apply to media freedom, including live broadcasts, or to peaceful assembly.
	Yesterday the world was shocked to witness on its television screens unarmed protestors being shot by Kenyan security forces. A process of national reconciliation is desperately needed to start to heal the wounds that have been inflicted by the disputed elections and the violence that has followed.
	Furthermore, while the crisis continues, Kenya's economy will suffer. We do not want that: we want Kenya to grow. But continued political uncertainty means continued uncertainty for the business community and a decline in tourism and investment. That will impact most sharply on Kenyan workers.
	We fully support President Kufuor's mission to Kenya, on behalf of the African Union, which succeeded in gaining agreement from both Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga that there should be an end to violence and that there should be dialogue. They also agreed that they would work with a panel of eminent Africans towards resolving their differences and all other outstanding issues, including constitutional and electoral reforms.
	We are pleased that former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan agreed to head the panel, and that Graca Machel and former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa also agreed to take part.

James Duddridge: The Minister mentioned President Kibaki. Does the Foreign Office formally recognise him as the President of the country?

Meg Munn: Our Government have not recognised the Government and are calling on both leaders to co-operate in a process of mediation.
	The panel of experts has our full support, and the UK stands ready to assist them in any way we can. We also wish Mr. Annan a speedy recovery from the illness that has delayed his departure for Nairobi and hope that he will soon be able to travel. Speaking to our international partners, we know that they are also fully behind this effort. Both sides in the political dispute must now use this opportunity to come together for dialogue to resolve their differences. A lasting political solution, based on compromise, which reflects the will of the Kenyan people, needs to be agreed.
	The fundamental issues that need to be addressed remain the same. All the allegations of fraud during the elections should be fully investigated. Those who are found to have acted illegally and contrary to the principles of democracy should be held to account. That also applies if they are found to have instigated or orchestrated violence, as has been alleged. The possibility of auditing the results of the election should be examined, although we recognise that the original data may no longer be available. In the longer term, it is important that there is institutional reform to reduce the risk that the events of late December might be repeated.

Jo Swinson: The Minister mentions the possibility of auditing the votes that were already cast, but most of the available information shows that that will not be possible because they have been destroyed or tampered with. Surely the way forward for Kenya is to hold fresh elections so that people can have their say and have their votes counted properly.

Meg Munn: We believe that that possibility needs to be discussed properly. The two leaders need to agree on the mediation process and constitutional and electoral reform need to be considered. It is not for us to say at this point whether there should be further elections. That is a matter for discussion. The African Union delegation and the panel of eminent persons that I mentioned will go to Kenya to talk to the leaders and consider those issues. We must support that process.

David Evennett: I am listening with great interest to the Minister's comments. Of course, the political issues are important, but the humanitarian ones are even more so. It has repeatedly been claimed by UN observers, independent charity workers and local Kenyans that aid dispatched from the west is not getting through to the people who need it, but is being siphoned off corruptly. Is there more that the Government could do to help to prevent that?

Meg Munn: We have considered carefully for some time the long-term issue of corruption. For that reason, we try to ensure that our aid is delivered through organisations that are not part of the Kenyan Government. We continue to support all efforts to tackle corruption, as we have done for many years. On the subject of the current situation, the UK and the EU are considering whether they should stop the aid that they provide because of corruption. We need to look at the right way to ensure that humanitarian relief reaches Kenya.
	The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the safe delivery of aid poses considerable difficulties. All the aid agencies do the best that they can to ensure that help gets to those who need it, particularly when the social situation deteriorates because of the political situation. He is right to be concerned about the plight of ordinary people and the humanitarian crisis, but we also know that the resolution of the political situation and a move towards an agreed solution will help the humanitarian situation. That is why I have placed such emphasis on talking about all the issues, in particular ethnically motivated violence, which is a cause for great concern. Kenya had turned from such violence and its re-emergence poses a risk. The sooner that we have an agreed mediation process and move forward on the subject of constitutional and electoral reform, the better it will be for the humanitarian situation described by the hon. Gentleman.
	In the longer term, we have to see institutional reform because that will reduce the risks of the events of late December being repeated. Sufficient checks should be put in place to allow Kenyan people to restore their faith in democracy and their trust in the electoral system. We hope that the panel will help Kenya's leaders to examine how the crucial elements of constitutional reform can be fast-tracked. Changes that spread executive power and patronage more widely could reduce the winner-takes-all nature of the presidential election. They would reduce the temptations to cheat or resort to violence.

Ann Cryer: Will the Minister enlighten me on the subject of whether teams of observers were present during the conduct of the elections? If we have to have more elections, can we ensure that even more observers are present?

Meg Munn: Indeed there were. It is interesting to note that the previous elections had gone well and it had been considered whether, on this occasion, observers needed to be sent. They were present and reports on the elections have also been made. The Commonwealth observer group produced a report today—hon. Members will understand that I have not seen it in detail—that clearly said that the elections fell below acceptable international standards, so my hon. Friend's point is well made.

James Duddridge: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I appreciate that time is short. I am concerned about whether there were early indications that things were going wrong. For example, everyone whose name began with the letter O was left off the register in Nairobi. That happened well before the elections took place, and members of the second ethnic group that the President wanted to disadvantage commonly have surnames that begin with O. There were early indications of the problem, and I am concerned that they were not picked up.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. I was talking in a general sense about how Kenya's democracy had progressed. It was hoped, because of the conduct of previous elections, that the attendance of observers would not be necessary this time, but obviously the decision was made to send them. Concerns were raised by the EU election observers and other observer missions about alleged irregularities in the conduct of the elections. It is important that they are investigated fully through proper democratic and legal channels. Those early indications of the problem were taken into account.
	Constitutional reform is important because it would help to ensure that Kenya's diversity is better reflected in its Government and could strengthen the prospect of future Governments carrying the broad confidence of the Kenyan people
	I call for the lifting of the ban on live media broadcasts in Kenya and for respect for the right to peaceful assembly. It is important that all people have an outlet through which to express their views, and that the media can report objectively on events in Kenya. We hope quickly to establish the basis for restoring stability in Kenya and regaining the trust of its people in how they are governed. Until that happens, it cannot be business as usual. The United States and the EU made that clear in statements released over the weekend. The Department for International Development is keeping our development aid programme for Kenya under close review.
	All Kenya's leaders need to overcome their divisions, to engage in a genuine process of reconciliation and to agree on a way to govern that reflects the democratic will of the Kenyan people. The Kenyan people, Kenya's business community and its international partners have had their confidence in the Government of Kenya damaged over the past three weeks. Kenya's politicians will have to work hard to win back that trust. Let us hope that the swearing-in on Tuesday of Kenya's 10th Parliament, the election of which broadly carried greater confidence in the eyes of observers, and the successful election of a Speaker and deputy Speaker will be a first step on that path.

Keith Simpson: This is the first time that I have participated in one of the new topical debates. I suppose it is the parliamentary version of speed dating, in which speakers have to make an impact straight away.
	I welcome the opportunity to evaluate the efforts that have been made so far to restore calm in Kenya since the crisis erupted more than three weeks ago. The initial outbreak of widespread violence and displacement has lessened, although, of course, confrontations are still going on between protestors and the Kenyan security forces. As the Minister said, some 250,000 people remain displaced and at serious risk of violence, intimidation, hunger and disease. Increasingly, there are worrying signs of tribal and ethnic divisions. The crisis has not been resolved, and although we hope that a compromise will be reached between the two main political contenders, there is a danger that the situation could get much worse.
	In the short time that I have been allocated, I want to put a series of questions to the Minister. She might not be able to cover them all when she winds up the debate, but if that is the case, perhaps she will take the opportunity to write to me later.
	It is still far from clear what happened during the contested elections. Does the Minister agree that the publication of a full report by the EU monitoring mission would be helpful? Is such a report being prepared and when might it be published? Is there any evidence that the initial violence following the election, which was initiated by Mr. Odinga's supporters, was premeditated rather than spontaneous? I do not ask that question lightly, but some friends in Kenya have told me that there is a strong feeling in the country that the violence was more premeditated than spontaneous.

Hilary Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The observer from this country who was in Kenya as part of the Commonwealth mission said that translations of vernacular radio broadcasts had been obtained and that they showed that the Orange Democratic Movement had appealed for violence, both before and after the election.

Keith Simpson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I have no definitive knowledge of that, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
	Human Rights Watch has accused the Kenyan police of using live ammunition to disperse protestors and looters, killing and wounding dozens. Have the Government been able to confirm such reports, and have strong representations been made to the Kenyan authorities about them? Will the Minister confirm reports that the Kenyan Government are maintaining the suspension of news broadcasts? Have the Government protested about such actions? Will the Minister confirm that the UK has urged the two leaders to meet? What is her understanding of their continued refusal to do so? Are they genuinely at odds, or are they looking for reasons not to meet, in the hope of gaining an advantage one way or the other?
	Crucial during this period of instability is the Kenyan army. I taught some of the young men in it when they were officer cadets, and they have a very good reputation for being highly professional. Does the Minister believe that the army's cohesion and discipline have been threatened by the crisis? Can the army be relied on to remain outside politics?
	As the Minister said, it is clear that international efforts have not yet had a significant impact on the crisis. Have Ministers spoken to Mr. Annan, and can the Minister shed any light on what sort of compromise plans he is prepared to propose? What plans are there for further African or international mediation if the Annan initiative does not make progress? What options does she believe the international community has to put pressure on President Kibaki and Mr. Odinga to agree a power-sharing arrangement?
	Will the Minister say a little more about Britain's role? What is the background and experience of the UK high commissioner to Kenya, and how long has he been in his post? There have been reports of some differences of opinion between the UK and the US about what would be the best political arrangement to emerge out of the crisis, and in particular about the UK's clear support for a Government of national unity. Will the Minister confirm that, and is she confident that we are working effectively with our international partners to co-ordinate a response to the crisis?
	Does the Minister, or any other member of the Government, plan to visit Kenya in the near future? If so, does she believe that that would have a positive impact? Does the Minister agree that it is important that we listen to the voices of the Kenyan people? Does she accept that we should send a message of support to the population, making it clear that the international community does not back either of the contending political groups? An impression exists, rightly or wrongly, that the British Government tend to back Mr. Odinga rather than the president. I do not assert that that is the case, but it is the impression conveyed by some press outlets.
	Have the Government sought contact with influential groups in the wider Kenyan society, such as the Churches, business and trade unions? In his recent statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary said that the UK would consider providing more aid, as necessary. Is the Minister confident that sufficient international aid has been dispatched to meet the immediate needs of displaced people, and are the Government considering further assistance?
	Louis Michel, the EU's Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, has warned that the EU may consider cutting long-term development aid to Kenya unless the political situation there improves. Is that something that the British Government support, and at what stage would decisions about EU aid be made?
	All the matters that I have raised will need to be addressed, and Kenya will need international support to that end, but will the Minister assure the House that the Government are giving no thought whatever to the idea of imposing sanctions on the Kenyan Government—something that has been suggested by the Liberal Democrat party? Will she assure the House that the Government are considering the long-term support that should be extended to Kenya, especially as that concerns the reforms to the electoral and judicial systems that the country will need if it is to deal with electoral disputes in the future?
	I turn now to the wider ramifications of the crisis. The Opposition remain concerned about the impact on regional stability. As the Minister knows, Kenya is the transit point for a quarter of the gross domestic products of Uganda and Rwanda, for one third of the GDP of Burundi, and for the supply of many essential commodities. Many hon. Members will know that this is not just a Kenyan crisis but an east African one.
	The road blocks and instability in Kenya have made it impossible to move fuel along the regular routes through east Africa. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are in close contact with the Governments of countries neighbouring Kenya? Are those countries providing good feedback? What assessment has been made of the number of Kenyans who have fled to neighbouring countries? Is humanitarian assistance reaching them, as their presence is having a major impact on the economies of the countries involved? Will the Minister confirm disturbing reports that Ugandan soldiers have been brought into Kenya, and does she agree that that would be a worrying escalation of the situation?
	There have been al-Qaeda attacks and major terrorist incidents in Kenya in the past. Is there any concern that the current crisis might provide cover for an upsurge in that sort of activity, especially since al-Qaeda is known to be active in Somalia?
	Kenya is an important hub for international bodies and non-governmental organisations operating across Africa. Has the crisis had any impact on their ability to operate?
	In the past, Kenya has been held up as a good example of a new African country which, although not a perfect democracy, has managed to maintain many democratic institutions. Its level of violence has been lower than that experienced in many of its neighbours. The sadness is that Kenya may be joining the group of African countries that are sliding away from the democratic process. I am sure that all hon. Members would want the Government to give Kenya all possible assistance, but to make it clear to the authorities there that the UK does not back one political party over another.

Hugh Bayley: The situation in Kenya is extremely serious, for Kenyans and for black Africa as a whole. Kenya's stability since independence has enabled it to attract inward investment in sectors such as tourism, horticulture, telecoms and banking. It is a low-income country, but not so poor as to count as one of the world's least developed nations.
	Just after the new year, I was fortunate enough to be invited by Mr. Speaker to attend the conference of Commonwealth Speakers. I was able to speak at some length with quite a few of the African Speakers and to get their views. They were extremely concerned about what was happening in Kenya, in part for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). Mombasa is the seaport for Uganda and Rwanda, and a great deal of the exports from Burundi also go through it. In addition, Jomo Kenyatta airport is a regional hub for countries in sub-Saharan Africa and around the Indian ocean.
	The crisis with Kenya's stability is a problem for Africa for other reasons as well. The unexpected collapse of the rule of law in Kenya has sent a signal to investors in other parts of the world that Africa is not a safe place to do business, and that could have very serious consequences for the continent's development.
	Some people in the media and elsewhere in this country—including some Kenyan expatriates living here—have suggested that Britain should do something, such as supervising new elections. Yesterday evening, I attended a meeting on Kenya organised by the all-party group on Africa, and I heard a Kenyan expatriate call for Britain to send in the troops. The Government must be level-headed. We are not the colonial power—Kenya has been independent for almost 50 years. We would not expect to step in to manage the affairs of India, France or the United States if they faced an electoral crisis, and we should not do so in Kenya.
	I support strongly the visit of John Kufuor, chairman of the African Union, which seemed at least to damp down the violence, for which we should all be grateful. I hope that Kofi Annan will soon be fit and able to visit the country and start work toward a process of reconciliation. Well respected African leaders are more likely to be able to broker some sort of settlement than a UK envoy.

Andy Reed: As always, my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Although it is difficult in the short term not to want to do more, does he agree that it is far more important for Africa's long-term development and stability that it and the African Union sort out the situation themselves, involving political leaders in the region in the process of bringing people together, than there be a quick fix, which is probably not possible in Kenya anyway?

Hugh Bayley: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. We should stand with the African leaders and support their efforts.
	I do not want to be prescriptive. I support mediation, but I have to say to the Minister that I doubt that a power-sharing deal would work. Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga are both strong men with enormous egos. Ten years ago, at the request of the Labour party, I went on an exercise funded by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to see the then opposition candidates who intended to stand against President Moi in the election before last and to ask them whether they would unite around a single candidate, to make defeat of the KANU party, which had been the ruling party of Kenya since independence, more likely.
	The candidates, including Odinga, all agreed that there should be one candidate; the problem was that they all said, "It should be me." Five years ago, however, a deal was struck among the opposition parties. Raila Odinga stood back, Mwai Kibaki went forward as a rainbow coalition candidate and the KANU presidential candidate was defeated. Raila Odinga entered Kibaki's rainbow coalition cabinet, but did not stay long. He fell out with President Kibaki over the President's constitutional reform programme fairly soon—two years, I think—after the election. He left the Government and formed an opposition party, now known as the Orange Democratic Movement.
	I am certain that what Kenya needs is not a political fix between Kibaki and Odinga, or between Mwai Kibaki and the minority parties in Parliament. Kibaki has already done a deal with Kalonzo Musyoka, who broke from Raila Odinga's ODM last year to form the ODM-Kenya. Mr. Musyoka has been rewarded with the vice-presidency, which delivers 16 parliamentary votes—the 16 members of Mr. Musyoka's party who were elected to Parliament—to the Government coalition. What Kenya needs is not a fix between leaders. What Kenya needs is the rule of law and democracy. I believe firmly that it needs fresh elections—at least, fresh presidential elections—this year. We know that such elections cannot happen immediately, because so many people have been driven from their homes and would be unable to vote. A period of calm is needed to enable people to return home, but the elections need to take place this year, not in two, three, four or five years' time.
	What can our Government do? First, we should advocate good policies, but recognise our limitations. We can advocate such policies, but we cannot enforce them. Secondly, we should press for and provide technical assistance for a forensic investigation of the ballot, if such an investigation is possible. In that way, we and the world would know whether the election was stolen and what went wrong, so that lessons could be learned for the future. That was proposed at yesterday's meeting in Parliament by Gladwell Otieno, who is an extremely well respected Kenyan anti-corruption and human rights campaigner and founder of Transparency International-Kenya. She flew in yesterday to speak to our group on behalf of a coalition of voluntary bodies, Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice.
	Our Government should continue to refrain from recognising the election as free and fair and from recognising Mr. Kibaki's election as President. We should discuss with other African countries whether Kenya, in the present circumstances, should be suspended from the Commonwealth. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) that we should not cut aid—certainly not humanitarian aid. I have seen the work that DFID money funds for people with HIV/AIDS in Kisumu and Kibera—one of the worst slums in Nairobi—and that work should not stop. However, DFID should do what we did in Ethiopia after that country's President jailed some opposition MPs and politicians, which is reroute the money through channels other than the Government of Kenya.
	We should work to strengthen the democratic institutions in Kenya, especially the electoral commission. The present commission must stand down—it is wholly discredited. The chairman of the commission who announced that Mr. Kibaki had been elected President said later that he did so under duress; the commission cannot be allowed to remain as it is. Through the mediation process, we need to broker talks on how members of the electoral commission in future will be elected or appointed on the basis of all-party support.
	We also need to work to strengthen the judiciary and to work with the Kenyan Parliament. Parliament is especially important because Mr. Kibaki's party, the Party of National Unity, has only 43 seats. Mr. Odinga's ODM party has 105, but not an overall majority. Although the presidential election—whatever the true outcome—was extremely close, the parliamentary elections were not. The small parties in the Parliament hold the balance of power, which provides an opportunity for negotiation and compromise between the parties. We should do whatever we can to foster that process.
	We must recognise that Kenyan parties are not the same as UK parties. They are, if I may say so, less tribal than British parties. They are much more fluid: members of parties and Members of Parliament move from party to party, almost in pursuit of the best offer from a party leader. To be blunt, people are swayed by offers of office or of money. Parliament voted against MPs being able to switch parties last year, but it has not implemented that rule. As I mentioned, President Kibaki's decision to make Mr. Musyoka Vice-President delivered an additional 16 parliamentary votes to his parliamentary camp. We have to enter into dialogue with various parliamentary parties in Kenya to discuss the basis on which they can work together and whether a compromise between the parties in Parliament, at least, is possible.
	Many of Kenya's MPs are new. That was bound to happen, given the ruling party's loss of so many seats. Many of them have little experience of how Parliament works and what it can do to hold the Executive to account. I should declare an interest as chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I know that one of our trustees, Myles Wickstead, who was the secretary of the Commission for Africa set up by our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and who was formerly our ambassador in Ethiopia, has spoken to our high commissioner in Kenya, Adam Wood, to explore whether the Westminster Foundation for Democracy can help. The foundation has a history of work with political parties and Parliaments in east Africa. If we can help, I hope that the Foreign Office will get in touch with the foundation. We would be only too pleased to do what we can to help.

Jo Swinson: Some people have criticised the Leader of the House for her decisions on subjects for topical debate, but today her choice cannot be faulted. It is very welcome that the House has this opportunity to debate the crisis in Kenya. As we speak, thousands of Kenyans are protesting on the streets of Nairobi, in Kisumu and throughout the country. I am particularly delighted to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who made an eloquent and powerful contribution and who has much experience in international development.
	Let us be clear: the humanitarian and political crisis in Kenya has arisen because on 27 December, Mwai Kibaki stole the elections from the people of Kenya. More than 600 Kenyans have lost their lives and 250,000 have fled their homes as a direct result of an election that betrayed democracy and involved corruption at the highest levels, in the heart of the electoral commission of Kenya. The evidence is stark. In one constituency, recorded turnout was 115 per cent. In Molo, western Kenya, official results gave Kibaki 35,000 more votes than the total tallied by observers at the count. Delays in announcing results from Kibaki's stronghold allowed time to let officials know how many extra votes to add to the tally. There were no outside observers at the final stage of the ballot count. It is quite clear that the result was manipulated behind closed doors at the electoral commission.

Hilary Armstrong: My understanding from the Commonwealth observer is that if a tally in the presidential election was more than 100 per cent. by the time it got from the constituency to Nairobi, it was discounted.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the right hon. Lady's intervention. There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence from media reports. One television channel showed an official leaving the count saying, "I can't do this anymore, because of what I am being asked to do." We have been told what the chair of the electoral commission said about making the announcement of results under duress. We need forensic examination, as far as is possible, to determine the scale of the deception, but I do not think it is in doubt that the actual election result was not the one declared.
	We have known for some time that Mr. Kibaki has failed to tackle corruption as he pledged to do when he took power in 2002. That is just one in a long line of broken promises, such as the pledge to create the new constitution that Kenya so badly needs. Most seriously, more than a year ago Kibaki stacked the electoral commission with his own appointments and failed to consult Opposition parties. Surely that should have been the canary in the mine—a clear warning of what was to come. The crisis was predictable; in fact, it was predicted. I refer to the comments of my noble Friend Lord Steel of Aikwood in the other place on 31 January 2007:
	"Does the Minister therefore agree with the outgoing chairman of the commission, who is quoted in the Kenyan press as saying that if it is constituted in a way that people are not happy with, they will not trust the result?"
	The situation in Kenya shows how true that was. The Minister, Lord Triesman, responded in part by calling the lack of consultation
	"a weakness which we will continue to bring to the attention of the Kenyan Government."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 31 January 2007; Vol. 689, c. 227.]
	On 7 January this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked the Foreign Secretary what representations had been made to the Kenyan Government, but received no answer. I ask the Minister again now: what exactly did the Government do? What representations were made, and what actions did they take, at what levels, when Kibaki's rigging of the electoral commission pointed to forthcoming electoral chaos in Kenya?
	I welcome the Government's clear statement that they do not recognise Kibaki as the Kenyan President. We must ensure that there is no doubt, either in Britain or the international community, that the December elections are not seen as legitimate. The international community must be united in its rejection of Kibaki as Kenyan President.
	I understand that the UK Government have already put in place travel bans against certain members of the Kibaki Government. There is another lever that we can use: surely we could wield influence through the extension of such bans to all those who are blocking the political process, including, if necessary, Kibaki himself. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has considered that, and whether we have considered whether there are other members of the Government and the political class in Kenya to whom travel bans could be extended. We should work closely with our EU neighbours to widen the impact of such personal sanctions.
	Of course, when applying sanctions, we have to be careful that they are targeted against corrupt members of the Government, and those blocking the democratic process. They should not harm poor Kenyans, who are already victims in the crisis. The free education and HIV health programmes must be safeguarded.
	Elections are due in Angola, Malawi and Ghana in the next 18 months. There is a great danger that failing to deal rigorously with electoral corruption in Kenya will make similar problems more likely in those other African states. The political solution to the crisis in Kenya must involve fresh presidential elections.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the only lasting solution to the crisis is fresh elections and, as the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) says, they should be held relatively soon. Does she not agree that both the parties concerned should use this interim period to reach a joint agreement on the composition of the electoral commission of Kenya, so that whoever wins the election will buy into the commission's processes, and so that the elections can be seen as free and fair?

Jo Swinson: I welcome that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is right: it will, of course, be key that everybody involved in the Kenyan political process buys into the electoral commission processes, and the body must be seen to be independent.
	The idea of a Government of national unity is unlikely to work. Let us remember that Kibaki reneged on a memorandum of understanding between him and Raila Odinga back in 2002, so there is unlikely to be sufficient trust. The only realistic solution is for a transitional power-sharing Government to take office, and a timetable for new elections to be drawn up. It will take time for Kenyans who have been displaced to be resettled and reregistered to vote, and a lot of rebuilding work will have to be done across the discredited branches of government. The restoration of the electoral commission's independence is a vital step, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) says.
	The year 2002 brought a new sense of optimism to Kenya. That year's elections deserved the praise that they received for being the most free and fair in Kenyan history. Last December, voters again approached the polls with optimism, and recorded turnout was 70 per cent. However, the situation has quickly turned into a seminal crisis. Whether the violence is blamed on tribal tensions, a conflict between the haves and have-nots, or an intergenerational clash, we should not lose sight of the fact that the direct cause of the bloodshed was the manipulation of the presidential election result.
	As we enter the second day of fresh protests in Kenya, the potential for further large-scale loss of life is very real. Pressure must be brought to bear on Kibaki so that Kenya can have a transitional Government and fresh elections. Failing to act now will push Kenya closer to the brink.

Sally Keeble: I am extremely pleased that we now have topical debates, and particularly pleased that today's is on Kenya, a country with which I have had involvement over the past few years. Like other hon. Members, I want to consider the political and humanitarian dimensions of the issue.
	Last summer, I was fortunate enough to go to Kenya with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and spent some time speaking to Raila Odinga. I met Kalonzo Musyoka on the day when he moved from his previous party to the Labour party of Kenya. I also met the chair of what was then the party of Mwai Kibaki, the President. That gives some idea of all the changing of parties that goes on. Having spoken to a number of extremely articulate and able politicians, one thing was overwhelmingly clear: that the recent elections would present people in Kenya with a stark choice.
	They would be choosing between stability, economic growth and Kibaki's track record of universal primary education, albeit with criticism of the corruption, his Government's centralism and lack of vitality, and change under Raila Odinga, which would provide redistribution and decentralisation, and tackle the poverty agenda in Kenya, with the downside that the party was an unknown quantity and untested in government.
	I went back just before Christmas and it was clear that the ODM was way ahead, but there was a fervour of debate and people were looking at the big choice that faced Kenya. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made some important points, but I disagree with some of her comments. It was for the Kenyans to choose, not for us to say, and it certainly was not for any political party to steal the elections, which is what has happened. It is just not clear who stole what.
	In the parliamentary elections, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, there was clearly an overwhelming majority in favour of the ODM. When I visited Kenya last year I could see that people were fed up with politics as they had been, and they did not like politicians. That was reflected in the number of Ministers who lost their seats. Younger people wanted a greater say, and people wanted sweeping changes. The presidential election was clearly going to be closer, and that is where the conflict lies. As long as the results are disputed and people in Kenya believe that the election was stolen, there will be no resolution of the other problems that have arisen. It is therefore essential that the political situation be resolved.
	On the humanitarian front, there has been much talk about the various tribes of Kenya. I have quite a large number of Kenyans in my constituency and they had a prayer meeting at the weekend. One of them said that there were only two tribes in Kenya—the haves and the have-nots. The haves are a small group who hold power. The have-nots are a vast mass of people. That is the real political divide in Kenya.
	I run a little charity, which some hon. Members support. It works with organisations in the slums of Kenya, in particular in conjunction with the Kenya Network of Women with AIDS. It works in Kibera, Mathare and the other slums in Nairobi. I visited the project before Christmas when, among other things, we had the kids from the slums together for a great big Christmas party. It is sobering to think that most of those children, who have already been orphaned by HIV/AIDS, have now lost not only their parents but their homes and their few possessions. Even worse, the agencies that were feeding them cannot operate, so they have not had food for quite a while.
	The Kenya Network of Women with AIDS had to shut down all its feeding programmes because of the violence. World Vision in Kenya has also reported appalling consequences for its programmes, which were supporting some of the poorest people in Nairobi and outside. As that work cannot go on, the UN has to run feeding programmes in the slums. Kibera is not a slum on the fringes of the city; it is right in the middle of Nairobi. One drives past big affluent houses, and just round the corner, or just down the street, one finds oneself in the biggest slum in Africa—in such a rich city. It is an appalling thought that the UN has to run feeding programmes in such a place.
	Colleagues have spoken about the importance of Kenya, and they are right. It is a centre for east Africa. I understand that at one point the blockades on the roads were stopping fuel reaching Uganda, and that pressures were building up in Uganda because of fuel shortages and problems with other strategic supplies. Much of the humanitarian work that goes on in southern Sudan and Somalia, and some of the security work there, is based in Nairobi. That is affected by anything that damages the ability of people in Kenya to move about and carry out their business properly.
	Others have spoken about Kenya's having been a beacon for multi-party democracy. It is therefore important that we deal with the political crisis and the humanitarian fallout from that. Although it is for Kenyans to decide, there are steps that we in the UK can take, given our historic relationship and our close economic ties with Kenya, to make sure that things keep moving there. The first is to keep on Kenya's case, and especially on Mwai Kibaki's case.
	I suspect that some are hoping that after the world has made a fuss and a compromise deal is reached, which people in Kenya are quite capable of achieving, the world will accept that and life will go on, while the underlying question of what happened in the elections is never resolved. It is important that this debate is taking place, and I hope that the scrutiny and the pressure from the Government will continue. A recount is probably not possible because of the tampering with the ballot papers, but there should be an investigation of what happened in the elections. In due course there must be fresh elections. I hope that they will take place in an orderly fashion, and that all the lessons will be learned about how the monitoring is carried out, how the ballot boxes and ballot papers are moved and so on, to avoid a rerun of the disaster.
	If there is to be power sharing, my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in Government should keep a close eye on the nature and basis of that power sharing. There is ample previous experience of coalitions in Kenya. At best they can be inspiring and move the country forward; at worst they can be a grubby deal between politicians horse-trading power and influence. The former is needed, not the latter. We should ensure that there is a genuine sharing of power, not just a divvying-up of jobs. That is difficult under the present constitution, without certain checks and balances, with a very powerful presidency, and with the vice-presidency apparently now occupied as well.
	I hope my hon. Friend and the rest of the Government will push for real transparency about who is pulling the strings. Like others, I welcome the mission by the UN and other African Heads of State. However, I notice that almost every communiqué issued refers to talks with Daniel arap Moi. Moi's influence in connection with Kibaki is well known. He was his fund-raiser during the election campaign. This is a president who was thrown out in the previous elections for corruption on a scale that leaves most people gasping. It is important that if there is to be international confidence and transparency, the elected politicians, not those who were chucked out for corruption, are making the decisions and pulling the strings.
	I ask my hon. Friend to keep a close watch on what happens with the Kenyan Parliament. When Mwai Kibaki lost the referendum on the constitution and was in difficulties, one of the responses was to put Parliament into recess and keep it there for several months. That must not happen again. I understand from reports that it is not due to sit until March. Can the Minister confirm that? If that is the case, that means that while there is unrest on the streets and there are debates about the nature of the power sharing and the future of the country, Kenyan MPs are in their constituencies, but Parliament is not sitting and holding the President and Government to account, which is really important.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire rightly mentioned the packing of the electoral commission; the same happened with the judiciary just before the election, when the President appointed a number of judges. People say that things should be left to the courts, but there are real fears that that is a difficult issue. I ask my hon. Friend and her colleagues to keep up the pressure on those points and provide the space and certainty so that the Kenyan people can make their own decisions on the proper way forward for their country.
	I plead above all that we maintain long-term commitments to the humanitarian work and ensure that that goes through non-corrupt channels. One night I opened the  Evening Standard and saw a picture of flattened parts of Kabira. I knew that a number of the children whom I had seen only a couple of weeks previously had lived there. Either those shacks—and they were terrible things—will re-emerge or the international community will say that in this day and age such housing is not appropriate and we should consider providing proper shelter there, and do the same for the other appalling slums. We should ensure that the supply lines for people's HIV/AIDS treatment, some of which is being disrupted, are maintained. Above all, we should ensure that the children will get food.
	Kenya has been a country of great wealth, dynamism and enterprise, but it has also been one of massive poverty. As other Members have said, what is happening there now is impacting grossly on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.

James Duddridge: I must admit that I am somewhat resistant to modernisation of the House, but topical debates are a brilliant idea, as a number of contributions clearly demonstrated today.
	Perhaps I should not admit it as an ex-banker, but sometimes I struggle with numbers—250,000 people in Kenya have been displaced; I struggle with the enormity of that number. More than 600 people have been killed—about the same as the number of Members in this House. I think of the life of the young girl in Kenya whom my wife sponsors. She writes to us every six months about what is happening in her village, which is one of the affected areas.
	To put the numbers into context, 6,000 people regularly meet at Southend United football club; 250,000 is an enormous number. The situation is horrific for Kenya, the region and the African continent generally. As one who spent a lot of time working in Africa before entering this place, I know it to be a place of great optimism and entrepreneurship. There are great business opportunities in Africa. However, every crisis there is an indicator for the uninitiated that Africa is not a safe place in which to holiday or work or to trade with. That is a complete tragedy.
	A number of hon. Members have spoken about Kenya's regional role. I, too, am deeply concerned about the links with Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi in respect of essential goods and petrol. The Kenyan crisis could have a severe long-term impact on the whole region. I would welcome any information that the Minister can provide on Nairobi being a financial hub for the whole region. I presume that the stock exchange is closed and that financial transactions are not taking place; if so, that will have wider impacts, beyond Nairobi.
	Kenya always provided great optimism—just as, ironically, Zimbabwe did as a large, affluent country with lots of natural resources. Now, however, those are two major blights in Africa. Although we should not interfere in Kenyan affairs, we should look critically at the failure of the British Government and international institutions to spot the problems. Specifically, there were strong indications before 27 December that the elections might not be free and fair and could cause problems. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what representations the high commissioner made to the Department about the elections and their likely validity before they took place. Were there any indications that people were preparing for violence, if that was indeed premeditated?
	The statistics and facts prove absolutely that the elections cannot be relied on. In some areas, 115 per cent. of the voters apparently voted. In an intervention, I mentioned the problem of the electoral register and the manipulation that left whole tribal groups with a common name off the register. All that happened before the election, so there were early indicators that there could be major problems.
	The Kenyan economy might not be fundamentally damaged. There is some cause for optimism; everyone feared that the bombs in Nairobi in 1998 and Mombasa in 2002 would bring Kenya and its tourism to a grinding halt. However, Kenya has managed to get back on its feet and attract business and tourism again. However, the country is losing £15 million a day as a result of the problems, and a country with a GDP per capita of about $500 a year cannot afford that.
	Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I spend a lot of time considering Africa through the prism of development and the departmental prism of the Department for International Development rather than that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There needs to be greater co-ordination between the two; it seems farcical that, as the DFID budget is rightly being ramped up and spending on governance is increasing—some of that money needs to flow through to places such as Kenya—the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, for example, is not receiving the same funding increases. Perhaps that organisation would be more effective than DFID trying to reinvent the wheel. Although I support DFID as an independent Department, perhaps there is not the co-ordination that there would have been under a single Department in respect of situations such as Kenya's. I urge greater co-operation.
	This topical debate has rightly concentrated on Kenya's problems, but the Minister should take time to reflect on what the Department does to spot other problem areas. We often talk about the three major issues of trade, aid and conflict resolution for the developing world, but we need to consider not only post-conflict, but pre-conflict resolution. There were certain signs in Kenya that indicated that there might be social, civil and political unrest—issues of corruption, overpopulation and pressures on the land are very evident in Kenya and they are easily monitored. Corruption can be followed through the excellent organisation, Transparency International and population growth is closely monitored by a number of international organisations, including the UN. Land pressure can be monitored by looking at agricultural statistics on land yield. Surely the FCO should do some statistical modelling to note countries at risk across Africa and give greater economic, governance or political support. Indeed, extra FCO and DFID people should go to the country to try to assist.
	I did not hear the Minister mention British citizens in Kenya. When my good friends Councillors Liz and Mel Day were in Kenya, their return was delayed because of the difficulties. While it is not our primary concern to worry about British citizens—and should not be, given the large numbers of people killed and displaced—there are significant issues in that regard.
	Several Members mentioned the African Union, which must be the powerhouse of change and peer-to-peer review within Africa. It is not right for the UK, as an ex-colonial Government, to impose solutions, nor even for the EU or any other international organisations to do so—much better that the AU should do it. That is easy to say, but we need to give the AU a lot more support. It would be fair to say that while Britain has encouraged the AU to act in several other countries—for example, in Zimbabwe—it does not have the momentum to be what we would call the critical friend that would allow countries to be critical of one another and say, "You're my neighbour but what you're doing is unacceptable." We need to give it the confidence to be able to do that.
	That said, I am optimistic. Kenya recovered from the Nairobi bombs. I wholly disagree with one aspect of the speech by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), which was very good overall. I think that imposing sanctions or travel bans now, 30 days or so after the incident, would be premature and counter-productive, even if it was the right thing to do at some point. It might be possible to resolve the situation quite quickly, and there should not be a knee-jerk reaction to these events.

Jo Swinson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government already have travel bans in place for some of the individuals concerned, so it would just be an extension of that? The elections were on 27 December. The situation is escalating, so it is incredibly important that the Government bring pressure to bear now to precipitate free and fair elections.

James Duddridge: I do not accept the hon. Lady's proposition; in fact, it might get in the way of people travelling here for international discussions about what is happening.
	Other than that, it has been a good debate. I very much hope that for the young girl whom we sponsor in Kenya, and for the whole community, things get better, because it is a dire, horrific situation.

David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to today's topical debate on Kenya and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge).
	I have never visited the country, and therefore have no personal experience of it, although I have many friends who have visited on business or on holiday and tell me what a beautiful place it is and what great people Kenyans are. However, the results of the recent elections and the subsequent crisis remain of great concern to us all. The humanitarian issues remain tragic and the consequences are very worrying for the future. The indiscriminate violence has been appalling and still, sadly, continues. Without doubt, the top priority for Kenya's political leaders and the international community must be to bring the murder and violence to an end. All Kenyan political leaders have an obligation, and must do everything in their power, to end the bloodshed and to start talking.
	As we have heard from many Members in a very good and measured debate, Kenya has been quite different from many of its African neighbours, with relative stability. Surely compromise and all the politicians working together must now be the answer. The efforts of the African Union, the United Nations and the Commonwealth to bring political reconciliation must be supported, and I welcome what the Minister said about that in her opening remarks. We must all be ready to assist wherever possible. I strongly support the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) in his opening speech from the Opposition Front Bench.
	While accepting, as the Minister did in response to my intervention, that a political solution is vital and the way forward, the suffering of the people must not be forgotten. In the UK, we must be ready to respond to the appeals from the Kenyan Red Cross for humanitarian support. The displacement of people, the destruction of homes, the violence, the killings and the problems of so many are heart-rending, and we remember that today. The UK-based charity Merlin Relief International has stated, and I hope that the Minister will note, that it needs £300,000 to continue its work beyond the end of this month in Nyanaza province alone. What plans has the Minister made for dispatching aid, especially financial provision, to Kenya and supporting the efforts of UK charities such as Merlin and the British Red Cross? These are vital areas where we should be looking to help. Of course, the political influence that the Government can exert is very important, but the humanitarian aspect is equally so.
	Kenyans complain bitterly of Government corruption, stressing that few of their own parliamentary leaders visit the poorest areas and that domestic and foreign aid packages are mis-targeted or appropriated so that they do not reach those in greatest need. Others claim that neither Kenyan nor foreign leaders fully appreciate the problems facing the common man and woman in the country. That hinders the effective application of aid packages. All the issues that have been raised today on both sides of the House have highlighted how critical the situation is, and we urge the Government to do everything possible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: DFID's recent policy has been, rightly, to direct aid in most cases, and wherever possible, directly through the foreign Government concerned. Does my hon. Friend agree that in this case that policy needs reassessing so that we can get money quickly to the NGOs that are involved at the sharp end? Mention has been made of AIDS, but many other health and food projects urgently need aid to get into Kenya.

David Evennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment and for his expertise on these issues. I entirely endorse what he says.

Hugh Bayley: For clarification, although DFID provides aid through the Governments of many developing countries through a process called budget support, it does not, because of corruption and for other reasons, use that as a route for delivering aid in Kenya, so it is not a problem in this case.

David Evennett: I am grateful for that comment and hope that that is so.
	We are all united in the belief that it is absolutely essential that Kenya returns to normality as quickly as possible to avoid long-term damage to the economy, to end the suffering of the people, and to protect the future of a very beautiful country.

Brooks Newmark: I was not expecting to speak in this debate; I would have hoped not to have to speak in such a debate, but the images that I saw on the television of young men carrying machetes struck home tremendously.
	Last summer, I spent time in Rwanda, and those who know that country know that over a period of 100 days in 1995, an incredible genocide took place involving the Hutus and the Tutsis, in which the Hutu majority slaughtered 750,000 Tutsis. I went to see one of the memorials, on which it said "Never again". That phrase struck me when I saw television reports showing young men carrying machetes in the aftermath of the election in Kenya. That is why I wish to speak briefly; I appreciate that I have only a brief time to talk on this important issue.
	We heard from President Kibaki that the elections were free and fair, but we would not have seen the response on the street, and from the international community, if those on the ground believed them to be free and fair, and if those internationally, who know best practice when it comes to elections, thought so too. It is important that the Government take a strong stand on the issue, and I hope that the Minister will respond to this point. She should address the question asked earlier about whether the Government will recognise the Kibaki Government.

Meg Munn: indicated dissent.

Brooks Newmark: A simple yes or no will do, rather than equivocation. That is an important message that we need to send to put pressure on the Kenyan Government.
	On the nuances of what went on, my experience of what went on in Rwanda is that it was a tribal reaction. I have been to Kenya, and it is important that we do not see the current tensions in a country that is relatively stable compared with some of the countries around it, and which is relatively progressive—Nairobi is a big city—disintegrate into the tribal tensions to which I alluded earlier. What can we do, and what should we do? As an international community, aid is extremely important. I would like to congratulate those from the Department for International Development who are going to Kenya today to give that aid. It is a stressful time, there are tensions and it is not a particularly safe place to go. I know that people from DFID are going out there at the moment, and I want to give them my support.
	In particular, I should like to congratulate DFID on the support it gives in relation to HIV/AIDS, which is a big issue in Kenya, as it is, unfortunately, in many other African countries. I know that the Minister was shaking her head earlier; perhaps she can tell me why in her response, and I would also like to ask her about the targeting of aid. One of the criticisms we have heard from experts on the ground in Kenya is that aid is not as targeted as it should be. We are hearing that from independent observers, and perhaps she could address that issue.
	In responding to the situation, it is always easy for us in the west to say what we think should be done in Africa, but I am a great believer in the idea that those who are most local to a problem are those best placed to provide a solution. Therefore, I congratulate Kofi Annan, who is leading a panel of eminent Africans organised by the African Union, which includes President Benjamin Mkapa and Nelson Mandela's wife, Graça Machel, to try to resolve Kenya's problems. If Africa tries to resolve things along with its neighbours, we are far more likely to achieve success than we would as outsiders. That is better than us as westerners going in and imposing our views—and our sense of colonialism, as they would perceive it—to try to achieve peace and stability in that part of Africa.
	Finally, the overall response should be to try to support the Kenyan Red Cross, which has asked for our support through humanitarian aid. We should provide that assistance to the Red Cross, first of all. Secondly, we should ensure that we protect our citizens. A number of British citizens are there, and the Government have a responsibility to protect them. Thirdly, we must do whatever we can to condemn the Government of President Kibaki, and send a powerful message to him that we do not see his elections as free and fair and, therefore, do not recognise his Government as legitimate.

Meg Munn: We have had an excellent debate, with much agreement in the House. Several hon. Members' expertise added to its quality. I shall try to answer all hon. Members' questions—it is a bit disconcerting to be asked questions that one has already answered, but I shall forgive the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) on this occasion.
	I am not sure whether I can answer all the questions that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) asked. I am mightily relieved that I am unlikely to go on a speed date with him because the idea of having to answer so many wide-ranging questions about oneself is frightening. I do not know whether he has experienced speed dating—I certainly have not.

Keith Simpson: To save herself, I think that the Under-Secretary should move on.

Meg Munn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was worried that I was pressing him too much about his experience. However, it is right that we should move on because the debate is serious. Hon. Members have rightly asked a wide range of questions and I want to try to respond to as many as I can.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, the Department for International Development does not give direct budget support to the Government of Kenya. We will not give them direct budget support unless credible progress is made on tackling corruption. Clearly, we will not abandon people in need. Corruption hits the poorest people hardest and undermines development.
	Let me briefly set out our general aid programme and what we are doing in the current circumstances. In 2007-08, the Department for International Development provided £50 million in aid. The UK's aid programme is directed at health, education and social protection. Any suspension of it would inevitably have a direct negative impact on the poorest people, but we are keeping matters under review. On 3 January, the Secretary of State for International Development announced the provision of £1 million to Kenya Red Cross to meet the humanitarian needs of up to 500,000 people who are affected by the problems in the Rift Valley area. The Department for International Development Kenya submitted an application for an additional £1 million on 15 January.
	Business as usual is not possible until progress is made on dialogue and reconciliation, and the Department for International Development has temporarily suspended all aid payments to the Kenyan Government. We signed a public statement on 15 January as part of a broader donor co-ordination group to maintain pressure on the Kenyan Government for compromise and resolution.

Jo Swinson: Did the Under-Secretary say that, because of the current circumstances, the Government had suspended all aid payments to the Kenyan Government? How does that fit with the fact that we do not channel aid through the Kenyan Government?

Meg Munn: I am clarifying that there will be no aid payments to the Kenyan Government.

Sally Keeble: Will my hon. Friend also ensure that our payments that go via some of the Kenyan Government Departments from, for example, the World Bank, especially the global fund, are handled carefully during this turbulent period?

Meg Munn: I referred to a broader donor co-ordination group, which has agreed a public statement to ensure international co-ordination so that all those involved are aware of the position. The EU signed the development partners' statement, which agreed to reconsider budget support if the current situation continues and to channel a larger share of assistance through civil society organisations and the private sector. I therefore believe that I can give hon. Members the assurance that they seek that we are considering the matter carefully, that international organisations and partners are doing the same, that we will keep the position under review and that my hon. Friends in the Department for International Development will ensure that aid concerns are tackled.
	The most urgent humanitarian needs are clearly being prioritised. International non-governmental organisations can still operate in Kenya and I am informed that, so far, only World Vision has withdrawn any staff.
	Let me deal with some of the specific questions, especially those of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown has spoken to Kofi Annan about the African Union proposal and his visit. There are no current plans for UK Ministers to visit and we support the African Union-Annan process. We are non-partisan and we are talking to all sides.
	We have seen reports from human rights organisations in Kenya that some violence was premeditated and our high commission is looking into those. To answer the question that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked, our high commissioner is Adam Wood, who has been there since 2005 and is well respected. I had a video conference with him yesterday, in which he gave me an update on the situation. The current tension is concerning and we are monitoring it closely. We know that live ammunition has been used. We as the Government utterly condemn that and call upon the Kenyan authorities to stop its use.
	We know that the Kenyan military has supported humanitarian work, and we have so far heard no reports of the army's cohesion breaking down. Similarly, we are aware of reports that the Ugandan army is in Kenya, but our investigations have turned up no evidence of its presence. While we are on Uganda, we also believe that between 3,000 and 4,000 Kenyans have moved to Uganda and are receiving humanitarian support there.
	To move on to the electoral situation and the future of the process, our high commissioner, Adam Wood, raised the issue of appointments to the electoral commission with the Kenyan Foreign Minister at the time. Hon. Members asked how aware we were ahead of the elections that there might be problems, and I can assure them that those concerns were raised at the time. The election day itself was calm.

Jo Swinson: I appreciate the Minister's generosity in giving way again. It is welcome that our representative in Kenya raised the issue, but was it also raised by our Ministers at that level?

Meg Munn: I do not have that information to hand. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Lady about it after this debate, although she may be aware that the issue was not my personal responsibility.
	Problems started as votes began to be counted. The domestic and EU observer missions have reported serious irregularities in the tallying process for the presidential elections. I can tell the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk that the EU observer mission will release its final report on 4 February.
	The UK's position is that we are working closely with our allies. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of York, who speaks with great authority, rightly said that it is not for us to be prescriptive. We are therefore working with our allies—the US, and our European and African partners—to support efforts to resolve the crisis in Kenya. The UK wants Kenyan politicians to live up to their responsibilities and agree a way forward. Crucially, we are supporting the mission led by Kofi Annan to assist them in doing so.
	A number of hon. Members called for a rerun of the elections, although I recognise that they appreciated the problems of doing so straight away. We want African mediation to help the parties agree a way forward, but it is not for us to prescribe the outcome of that mediation.
	Briefly, on consular issues, we are not advising British nationals to leave—we are currently providing consular support—but we are advising against all but essential travel to Kenya. We keep our advice updated, and we want to ensure both that consular support is in place and that British citizens in Kenya are informed of what is happening.
	To conclude, there is a unanimous view throughout the House that the situation needs to be resolved—
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Temporary Standing Order (Topical Debates).

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we get on to our substantive business, may I raise a follow-up to an exchange at business questions today, in which the Leader of the House denied that Ministers were continuing to treat Members of the House with contempt by making announcements outside the House before making them to Members here? Shortly after business questions had concluded—I suspect that this was no coincidence—I received a hand-delivered letter in my office from the Minister of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), saying that she had endorsed the closure of the Christchurch Jobcentre office. I bumped into my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) just now, and he had yet to receive a similar letter telling him that the Dorchester office of Jobcentre Plus was also closing. What concerns me is that the Minister knows that I take this issue very seriously. It has been the subject of a public meeting in my constituency, the subject of a petition to Parliament, and the subject of an Adjournment debate that I initiated. Indeed, it was also the subject of a delegation that I took to discuss the matter with the Minister, yet her letter makes no reference to any of those matters. What concerns me most of all, however, is that I have now received a piece of paper from one of the journalists at the Bournemouth  Daily Echo which shows that, at 9.21 this morning, the Minister's Department was communicating directly with a journalist, making the telephone number of the Minister, no less, available—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to get his point on to the record. We must not start a full discussion about this. This throws further light on the lapses that appear from time to time at a disturbing level. Mr. Speaker has a strong view on this, and I can only say that, by placing this matter on the record, the hon. Gentleman has perhaps underlined the need for Ministers to be scrupulous in ensuring that hon. Members' interests are placed as a priority above all other communications. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill

Not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Powers of Secretary of State

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 7, page 1, line 4, at end insert
	'and the railway assets at Waterloo Station released by London and Continental Railways.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, page 1, line 5, at end add—
	'( ) The powers of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Railways Act 2005 shall be exercised in such a way so as to ensure that assets associated with the rail link at Waterloo Station are developed for the purpose of providing domestic rail services'.

Christopher Chope: I am delighted that amendment No. 7 has been grouped with amendment No. 4, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who sits on the Front Bench. This is an important issue relating to the railway assets at Waterloo international terminal. Most of my constituents who commute into Waterloo had assumed that, by the time the international terminal there was closed, a clear plan would be in place for its re-utilisation. It has now emerged that that is far from being the case. The decision to move the terminal from Waterloo international to St. Pancras was first taken in 1994. The Government have therefore had about 13 years' planning time in which to work out what would happen to the Waterloo international terminal when it was vacated by London and Continental Railways and the Eurostar services.
	Rather late in the day, back in February 2005, the Strategic Rail Authority, as it then was, invited tenders for consultants to look at all the options for future use of the Waterloo international terminal. Ove Arup, the partnership that won the tender, produced a voluminous and, I thought, very helpful report, dated July 2005. It set out a series of options. One of the options, mothballing, was considered and rejected because it was accepted that that was an expensive option. Even then, it was estimated that it would cost more than £500,000 a year. Obviously, it was also considered by many to be a shameful waste of valuable railway assets, particularly at a time when, as everyone who uses Waterloo station knows, the station is under tremendous pressure, with not enough platforms for all the services and passenger numbers close to the station's capacity. Amendments could be made to the structure of railway assets at Waterloo and nearby that would release the five platforms at the Waterloo international terminal for domestic services use.

Greg Knight: I agree with my hon. Friend's argument, but does he accept that his amendment No. 7 is not ideal because it is only permissive, which would enable a Minister to ignore his argument? Does he accept that amendment No. 4 provides a far better way of dealing with the matter because it directs the Minister in what to do?

Christopher Chope: I acknowledge that my amendment is more probing in order to raise the issue, while I view amendment No. 4, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, as a more substantive amendment. If we have the opportunity later, after withdrawing my amendment—providing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, agree to that—I would like to see amendment No. 4 put to the vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is absolutely right that that is a mandatory amendment. On the other hand, even that amendment will not achieve anything unless we have a clear indication from the Government that there is a will to do something. I note that the Under-Secretary acknowledges that. Let us hope that this debate will provide him with an opportunity to explain why we have the mere prospect of having one of those platforms opened for domestic services by the end of 2008 and no prospect whatever of any of the others being available for such services in the foreseeable future.
	Of course, there are all sorts of available options, some of which are incompatible with each other, which is the nature of options. That is why the Strategic Rail Authority, before it was abolished by the Government, was wise to engage the services of consultants. What depresses me is that, all these months and years on, it seems that the Government have still not reached a clear conclusion. Indeed, I do not believe that the Government commissioned the additional work recommended by the SRA consultants, so it provides yet a further example—to the detriment of hard-pressed commuters—of Government indecision in the critical area of public investment. Taxpayers are already paying through the nose for the cost of subsidies to Network Rail and railway services.
	We know that socialism is normally associated with public waste, public expenditure and declining quality of services, but there is no reason why the Government should make a habit of it, particularly in respect of Waterloo international. This should not be a party political issue because Labour constituencies are served by services going into Waterloo station and there are certainly Labour voters at Waterloo on a Monday morning. People are increasingly bemused by the fact that the Government talk the talk about investment in railways and the need to transfer people from road to rail, yet, when they have an opportunity to invest in it and take a decision, they fail to do so. Indeed, they funk it. That is exactly what has happened in respect of Waterloo international terminal.
	This Bill is all about ensuring that we continue to subsidise the channel tunnel rail link services with taxpayers' money and add value to London and Continental Railways. Yet, as I have said, the Government seem to be very mean when it comes to finding the necessary investment to make the most of the assets at Waterloo. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what has happened since the publication of the Strategic Railway Authority's review in July 2005.
	This issue affects a great many Members of Parliament. That is why I was a co-signatory to an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who is anxious for the assets to be returned to use as quickly as possible. What worries him and many others is that although the Government know that it would be right to invest in Clapham Junction as well, and thus to enable full use to be made of the facilities at Waterloo, they lack the will to find the money to do so, thereby leaving the commuting public and other passengers in a much worse position than would be possible if they made the necessary investment.
	I do not need to make a meal of this issue, but I would not want anyone to think that the fact that I had not spoken at length meant that I did not feel strongly that the Government must address the issue and address it today, and also apologise to the people of London and others who use Waterloo for the fact that they have already wasted valuable years with their indecision.

Stephen Hammond: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), but, as he said, my amendment is subtly different, and requires action by the Minister.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) seeks leave to withdraw his amendment, he will seek the Chair's permission to press amendment No. 4 to a Division?

Stephen Hammond: In that eventuality, I shall certainly seek the Chair's permission to do so.
	When the decision was made to transfer the international rail terminus from Waterloo to St. Pancras, the reasons for the move were announced by Eurostar's director of communications, Mr. Paul Charles, who listed some key benefits. He said, for instance, that
	"Domestic commuters will benefit from faster access into Waterloo and the opening of more train pathways",
	and that there would be
	"Opportunities for domestic train operators to utilise capacity vacated".
	That announcement was made on 15 November 2004. In the three years that have passed since then, the move to St. Pancras has taken place and we have witnessed the successful opening of the United Kingdom's first high-speed rail line, which enables travellers to cross from London to Paris in two hours and 15 minutes. However, improving Paris-London services was only one part of the deal. The other part of the deal was opening up the vacant platforms at Waterloo, and that has not been kept: the platforms remain empty.
	It is interesting to look at the forecasts of traffic and passenger numbers. In 1996, when LCR first bid for the project, it forecast that the number of passengers using Eurostar would reach 21.4 million in 2004. In fact, by that stage the number was only 7.3 million, and the latest available figure is 7.85 million. When we contrast that rather optimistic forecast with the huge increase in the number of people using routes into Waterloo, we see the problem. The Office of Rail Regulation estimates that 60 million people a year—164,000 a day—are now either coming into or leaving Waterloo.
	As I and my constituents experience, those trains are all too often overcrowded, and passengers are carried in conditions that may be described as subhuman. Interestingly, every time I look at the daily scrum on platforms 1, 2, 3 and 4—as people try to get the train from or back to my constituency—I sense the empty platforms at the other end of the station that ought to be used for my constituents and for those of so many other Members.

Peter Soulsby: The hon. Gentleman makes the use of those platforms—which is, indeed, very desirable—sound very simple. Does he not accept that it is a complicated issue that would involve alterations not only to the station, but down the track, and particularly at Clapham Junction, as has been suggested?

Stephen Hammond: Alterations to the station do not present a difficult problem. I accept that there are some track problems, but the overall cost of putting those five domestic platforms into operation, including the track works, has been estimated at under £10 million—I will listen to the Minister's response carefully. The cost of mothballing the platforms is reckoned to be about £500,000 a year, so there is a huge cost to mothballing, as well as to doing something. I also ask the hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind that this problem did not arise yesterday. As I made clear in my opening remarks, we knew from November 2004 that Eurostar operations were to move to St. Pancras, so there has been a long time to work out what might happen in the post-relocation period. That is a fact.
	It is also a fact that South West Trains operates some of the most overcrowded services in the United Kingdom. It wants to use the platforms at Waterloo for its longest trains—those that serve Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton and Portsmouth. Those vacant platforms are already long enough to host those trains. The ownership of Waterloo international will pass to the Department in March this year, and work could then begin, with an eye to having all the vacant platforms open. As I understand it, work will begin on platform 20, and the platforms will be available for use from December 2008.
	A number of issues arise from the lack of forethought. Let us be clear that the Government have had three years to get to this point; they cannot shirk responsibility. Eurostar is pulling out of Waterloo. It has no incentive to safeguard the platforms for domestic services post-withdrawal. The Government are taking over the platforms in question, and therefore it is their job to see that they are put to good use. I credit the Minister for clearly recognising that fact. He has given written answers to questions on Waterloo in the past two months on 12, 21, 26 and 27 November and on 6 and 18 December; he is a very busy man. Let me remind the Minister of what he said on 6 December:
	"Ownership of Waterloo International transfers to the Department at the end of March 2008 following Eurostar's de-commissioning of the facility as an international station. The Department is currently working closely with Network Rail and Stagecoach South West Trains...to finalise the design and costs associated with the partial conversion of Waterloo International to accommodate some domestic passenger services. The cost information should be finalised early next year. Works on site are expected to commence soon after the station transfers to the Department and will take several months to complete. Services could then operate into and out of Platform 20 of Waterloo International from the start of the timetable change date in December 2008.
	Options for the medium to long-term use of all five international platforms are being assessed...as part of a wider strategy for the upgrade of Waterloo".—[ Official Report, 6 December 2007; Vol. 468, c. 1484-85W.]
	On December 18, the Minister said:
	"It is primarily the railway infrastructure outside Waterloo that limits the number of trains that can use the station rather than the number of platforms. Therefore the need is to run longer trains rather than more trains. So we are planning a large scheme to make all the platforms long enough to accommodate 10 and 12 car trains...The scheme also presents opportunities at Waterloo International to reconfigure the passenger circulation space and the interchange with other transport modes, and to better integrate the station into the surrounding area. Such an ambitious scheme requires very detailed planning to make the most of this unique opportunity."—[ Official Report, 18 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 1441W.]
	None of that is in dispute, but the Minister's Department has known about the availability of the platforms since November 2004, so what excuse will he give us for the fact that it did not have a comprehensive plan for the redeployment of the platforms ready as soon as they were available after the decommissioning of Eurostar?

Ian Taylor: I have listened to this debate for longer than it would appear by the length of my presence in the Chamber. Since 2004, my colleagues and I have constantly prompted the Government to address this issue. The key to it is Clapham Junction, because of the size of the viaduct going in. Thus, it is not just about the circulation at Waterloo; it is also about investing at Clapham Junction in order properly to give commuter access to the five now-vacated lines.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend again makes the excellent point about the need for works at places other than Waterloo. As I explained in answer to an earlier intervention, a decent estimate has been made about the cost of those works, which, in toto, would not last longer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but may I urge him to address either the Chair or the microphone at all times? If he turns round completely, in a courteous effort to address his hon. Friend, the record can sometimes be impaired.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful for your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of my colleagues might think that the record would be better if I were turned round more often.
	I want to ask some further questions, and I hope that the Minister will address them. Why is it only now that the options for the medium to long-term use of all five international platforms are being considered? Why is only one platform being prepared for domestic services? Will he confirm that it will meet the December 2008 target? In the written answer of 18 December that I quoted, he said that the work planned at Waterloo is designed to allow longer trains to use the platforms. South West Trains runs 10 and 12-car trains on the main line and hopes to extend the number of cars used to at least 14. The reality is that the Eurostar platforms are the longest in Britain and can accommodate 18 carriages, so surely they are long enough to support the long trains.
	If the reason for the delay is an ambitious plan for Waterloo, when will it be revealed? What is it? What will it cost? Is the ambitious plan that the Minister mentions merely a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of the Government and Network Rail for not having a plan to use all the five platforms immediately on decommissioning? We seek answers to those questions from the Minister.
	The mess in the lack of preparedness for the decommissioning and the vacation is symptomatic of the failure to give the people of this country an accountable, efficient railway system that is focused on the needs of the passenger. The long-suffering commuters into Waterloo are amazed that this national asset, which is part of the answer to their problems, sits there lying empty. They will be unforgiving if four platforms continue to lie empty until 2012 to 2014, as the Minister suggested in one of his written answers.
	There is a way through this situation. Under section 6(1) of the Railways Act 2005, the Secretary of State has the power to
	"provide, or agree to provide, financial assistance to any person—
	(a) for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development of railway services or railway assets; or
	(b) for any other purpose relating to a railway or to railway services."
	Before anyone starts asking whether we are about to hear a spending commitment, I should remind hon. Members that financial assistance as defined by that Act is
	"(a) the making of grants or loans;
	(b) the giving of guarantees; and
	(c) investments in bodies corporate".
	So that does not necessarily imply that spending would be necessary, but it does imply that the Government may be required to give guarantees.
	I am sure that the Minister will tell us that part of the rationale for this short Bill is to ensure that the financial assistance, as defined by the 2005 Act, already given to London and Continental Railways by the Government remains in place as the construction phase ends and the operational phase begins. The Government currently provide financial assistance for capital funding in several ways. The whole financial assistance is utilised, including loans, Government-guaranteed bonds, securitised bonds and other debt facilities. The Government also have the power to provide some revenue funding for domestic services operating on the channel tunnel rail link. Therefore, it is clear that as part of the overall CTRL project, an asset—albeit an asset that is now post-construction and operationally redundant to CTRL—could receive a Government guarantee of financial assistance of some form to maximise its usage or disposal value. The disposal value of the Eurostar platforms, if disposed for railway purposes, would undoubtedly be maximised by ensuring that they were operational.
	We are told that the Bill is necessary because, among other reasons, the maximisation of the disposal value of other railway assets must be ensured. If the Government are to continue to provide revenue funding for the rest of CTRL, and capital funding guarantees, why not make Waterloo part of the scheme? It is undoubtedly critical that the platforms at Waterloo left vacant by Eurostar's relocation are put to use. We are all aware of the capacity shortages on our railways and they are particularly acute at Waterloo. The liberation of the five platforms represents a golden opportunity to address some of those capacity needs.
	The Government have, by the virtue of the Railways Act 2005, the power to provide financial assistance to those who own or run railway services or assets. The amendment in my name will put an obligation on the Government to exercise that power in such a way as to ensure that the platforms at Waterloo, which they will own from March, are put to domestic train use. The Government will fail in their obligation to passengers at Waterloo if they fail to do that. Amendment No. 4 would ensure that that obligation is fulfilled.
	I am known as a big fan of high-speed rail. Now that the dust has settled after the spectacular opening of St. Pancras international, it has become painfully obvious that not all of the obligations of the move from Waterloo have been honoured. The last cross-channel train has pulled out of Waterloo international and there is an eerie void where it once hummed with activity. That void must be filled. The Government must meet their obligations and, unless we receive more reassurance from the Minister this afternoon, I will seek to divide the House on the amendment.

Norman Baker: I welcome amendment No. 4. It is a very timely amendment that raises a serious issue. Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with the case that has been made. As soon as it became clear that Waterloo international was no longer to be used for Eurostar services, it should have been obvious that there was a wonderful opportunity for an improvement to domestic rail services into Waterloo. That is certainly obvious to the commuters who use trains into Waterloo every morning. The public would have expected the Government to have a plan to ensure that as soon as Eurostar services ceased, new domestic services began seamlessly. I accept that three years is not a long time, but the Government tell us that in 2012 they will come forward with plans for the period beginning 2014. So they seem to think that two years is sufficient for investment in long-term rail projects.
	It is clear that with rising congestion, overcrowded trains and a significant increase in the number of train passengers, for which the Government are happy to take some credit, we will need extra capacity on the rail network above and beyond that suggested by the Government's White Paper on railways. All the evidence suggests that railway passenger numbers are increasing faster than the Government anticipated. The pressures on the network will therefore be greater at an earlier stage than the Government admit. That is the same at Waterloo as everywhere else. It seems to me to be a no-brainer that we should bring the platforms into use for domestic services. The fact that the Government are talking only about platform 20, not the other platforms in Waterloo international, is a failure.

Peter Soulsby: I want to make the same point as I did when I intervened on the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) makes the use of those platforms sound very easy. In fact, he spoke just a moment ago about reusing the platforms. Does he, too, not accept that it is not simply a question of reusing the platforms but a complex business, involving realigning the track further back at Clapham Junction? That cannot be done the following morning or week, but needs a considerable amount of planning and investment.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman did raise that point a moment ago, and I am tempted to give the same answer as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). First, the planning should have started some time ago. Secondly, of course there are constraints further back at Clapham Junction and elsewhere—I accept that. However, this is a feature of the Government's rail policy. They are attempting to get as much as possible out of the network through signal improvements and so on, which is fine, but they have not yet grasped the nettle and recognised that we must invest significantly in the rail network to deal with the modal shift from road and air to rail travel, which is needed for climate change reasons, and to deal with the increase in passenger numbers.
	We will have to spend money on places such as Clapham Junction. There is no getting away from that. If we do not spend it now, we will spend it in 10 years' time. Such forward projections ought to be made by the Department for Transport, but it has not made them. It has failed to make projections far enough ahead about what will need to be done, including about such changes as those at Clapham Junction. The Department is still working on the presumption that oil will be $50 a barrel in 2025; that is the official DFT position. It was hardly surprising, with such inputs, that its answers were wrong.
	Yes, there are problems at Clapham Junction. They need to be dealt with. They should have been thought about before, but they were not. It is a complicated matter, but it all needs to be dealt with. It is insufficient merely to leave the platforms empty—or worse. One written answer that was referred to a moment ago, which I saw in  Hansard the other day, talked about "passenger circulation space". To me, that is rather a worrying phrase. It conjures up ideas of Birmingham New Street, where a lot of money is spent to provide not very much space for trains and quite a lot of space for people to sit and wait for trains. I wonder whether passenger circulation space actually refers to the idea of building a shopping mall and a couple more McDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets where passengers can wait in comfort for trains running from platforms one to 20, rather than using the platforms from 20 onwards for more trains. I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is no intention permanently to remove the platforms above platform 20 from Waterloo international and that that will not happen.
	I need not detain the House much longer. The hon. Member for Wimbledon made a good case, and if the House divides, my colleagues and I will support him.

Greg Knight: We have just heard three excellent speeches, all of which have made a compelling case for action. I hope that the Minister will satisfy us that he will take such action.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), as a lawyer, always makes a good case. However, I feel that today his drafting skills have deserted him. Amendment No. 7 is extremely wishy-washy, and if the Minister does not satisfy the House I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), will be minded to support amendment No. 4.
	I congratulate the Government on eventually overseeing the successful opening of the UK's first high-speed rail line, which enables passengers to get from London to Paris in two hours and 15 minutes. I also welcome Eurostar's move to St. Pancras, which is far easier for my constituents, and for residents of Yorkshire and other parts of the north in general, to get to than Waterloo—although why any resident of Yorkshire would wish to cross the channel, when in my constituency of East Yorkshire we have the delightful seaside town of Bridlington, I do not know.
	However, improving services from London to the continent was only part of what we were told would happen, as we were promised that vacant platforms at Waterloo would be used for domestic services. I do not blame the present Minister for the problems that we now face; they arose before his watch, but he must explain to the House why his predecessors did not undertake the necessary planning to bring the vacant platforms into use.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) made a fair point, but there has been a gap of three years in which action could have been taken to resolve the problems at Clapham Junction. As far as I am aware, no such action has been taken.

Ian Taylor: I think that I was the first to raise this matter: I did so in 2004, and have done so regularly since then. The issue is complex, and investment at Clapham Junction is required if we are to get the crossover facilities that we need. My right hon. Friend's constituents may well be happy that St. Pancras is now the terminal for Eurostar, but in my constituency there are nine railway stations that feed into Waterloo. I am unhappy that the vacated platforms are not fully in use for commuters.

Greg Knight: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern but, although my constituents do not face the disastrous travel problems that his face, the point is that the Government have a duty to maximise the use of public assets. They are spending some £6.5 billion on our rail network, and we were told that platform 20 and all the other vacant platforms at Waterloo would be brought into use. I hope that, unless it transpires that some platforms have to be demolished to allow the track to be realigned, the Minister will be able to reassure commuters that that is what will happen.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon was right to say that the Railways Act 2005 gives the Government the power to provide financial assistance to those who own or run rail services and assets. The Government would be in dereliction of their duty if they did not make available the money to allow the vacant platforms at Waterloo to be brought into use. Amendment No. 4 would oblige the Government to ensure that the vacant platforms at Waterloo were brought into use for domestic train services. I hope that, in the absence of an unequivocal assurance to that end from the Minister, the House will support it.

John Horam: I support amendments Nos. 7 and 4. I heard the critical remarks that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) made about amendment No. 7, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), but it is wholly consistent with my hon. Friend's known philosophy. He likes to enable, rather than force, people to do things, and the amendment is entirely consistent with that approach. Amendment No. 4 is more positive: it is designed to get the Government to do something—but then my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is the shadow Minister, and that is his job. I am therefore delighted with how he has phrased his amendment.
	Both amendments enable us to raise the problem of congestion on commuter railways south of the Thames—a matter of profound importance about which there has been a great deal of comment. The underground system south of the river is skeletal, and the commuter lines into the relevant stations south of the river—and occasionally just to the north—are suffering from huge and worsening congestion. Here is a golden opportunity to do something about that problem very quickly and simply.
	The opportunity presents itself to the Minister to score a quick hit. When we raise the problem of congestion on commuter lines, he always tells us that Thameslink will come along in due course and other things will happen in 10 years' time— [ Interruption. ] Thameslink may be being built now, but when will it be open? When will the famous Borough Market junction be free of congestion? Not for years to come. That is the truth of the matter.

Norman Baker: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the project used to be called Thameslink 2000?

John Horam: Yet in 2008 it is still not built—or, rather, it has been built but it will be years before it relieves congestion. That is precisely my point.

Tom Harris: I do not want to prolong the debate, but to answer the comment made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about Thameslink 2000, may I remind the House that the first thing I did on becoming a Minister was to change the project's name from Thameslink 2000 to Thameslink?

John Horam: The Minister was wise to do that. However, the fact remains that it will be a long time before we will see serious relief for my constituents and those of many other hon. Members as a result of the scheme.
	I understand that most of the pressure in this debate has come from my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who represent commuters coming in from the south-west—from Portsmouth, Southampton and stations closer to London. That is a priority, and Waterloo is the station for those commuters, but the fact is that after crossing the channel, the Eurotrains passed through Ashford, Orpington and Petts Wood—stations in my constituency—and then diverted from the main line carrying commuters into Charing Cross and Waterloo East to go into Waterloo station. There is therefore a line available.
	I do not expect to take all three or four lines—I am sure that South West Trains naturally expects to take the majority—but there must be some room for people from Orpington and Petts Wood to go into Waterloo, using those now disused lines. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said, we should maximise the use of public assets, which are there to be used. If we did that, it would immediately ameliorate my constituents' difficulties; otherwise, they will have to wait years for improvement.
	I am glad to see the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) back in his place. He often intervenes to say that what we are asking for will take a long time, but in this instance it would not. Eurotrains passed through Orpington, Ashford and Petts Wood and then went straight to Waterloo. Why cannot commuter trains from those stations in my constituency go straight to Waterloo, thus relieving the lines into Charing Cross? Now, many of my constituents travel from Orpington and Petts Wood and get out at Waterloo East, which is not far from Waterloo. Why can they not travel on the alternative line, which is available for use? It would not require a great deal of track rearrangement or similar work.

Peter Soulsby: I was not suggesting that that was undesirable or that it would take a long time. I merely intervened, as I am doing now, to say that this is not a straightforward matter of reusing platforms. Extensive work on the line would be needed.

John Horam: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has elaborated and clarified his comment, but the fact is that this is not a big issue. The work could be done relatively quickly.
	The Minister must know that what we want is some quick hits. I am trying to help him. He—a Minister in a Labour Government—would be able say to my constituents, "Here is something that will benefit you within a few months." We have a wonderful opportunity, but apparently it is not to be taken. Perhaps we are seeing the dead hand of Network Rail. We have seen how bad Network Rail is and we hope that, eventually, the Minister will do something about it. We have plans, as he may know. Perhaps the dead hand belongs to some other group involved in the railways, to civil servants, or to the Minister himself. The Government have an opportunity to do something imaginative and quick-acting, which is almost never possible with railway investment. I hope that the Minister will comment on that possibility.

Bob Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Horam: No, because I have finished my speech.

Tom Harris: I rise to speak more in the hope than in the expectation that I can persuade Opposition Members that the two amendments are not necessary. However, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has told the House that he intends to press them to a Division regardless of what arguments I make, I shall try to be brief.

Bob Spink: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Tom Harris: That is a very early intervention, but of course I will allow it.

Bob Spink: I am grateful. I have listened to the debate, having sat in on most of it, and I am surprised that no one has mentioned the wider societal and regeneration benefits that would come from supporting amendment No. 4, in particular. The part of the south bank in question, and Waterloo, need regeneration. The amendment would benefit not only commuters but that whole area of London.

Tom Harris: I was about to point out that no one has yet mentioned the relevance of the amendments to the Bill, which deals with the channel tunnel rail link and not with Waterloo or any other Network Rail mainline station.
	Clause 1 confirms that the power under section 6 of the Railways Act 2005 permitting the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for railway purposes applies to the rail link and the train services running on it. Clause 1 does not give a new power; it simply clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the power will apply to High Speed 1, as it applies to the rest of the rail network. The rail link that the clause refers to is HS1, the railway between St. Pancras and the mouth of the channel tunnel. Waterloo station is not part of the rail link and is not subject to the provisions of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, which gave rise to the uncertainty.
	It is also worth noting that ownership of Waterloo international terminal is to be transferred to the Department for Transport in March this year, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, and it will not be among the assets sold as part of the HS1 business. There is not considered to be any ambiguity about the application of section 6 funding powers to Waterloo. The transfer of Waterloo does not form part of the restructuring with which the Bill is concerned. As a result, amendment No. 7 is unnecessary and irrelevant.
	Turning to amendment No. 4, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon on his intellectual acrobatics in attempting to justify its logic and crowbar it into a short Bill concerned primarily—I would say exclusively—with the channel tunnel rail link. He started by describing his amendment as more subtle than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). If subtle is the definition of a brick, I suppose I agree.
	Amendment No. 4 would ensure that domestic services could use the platforms at Waterloo international. Assurances that that will be possible have already been given on numerous occasions. As far back as October 2005, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling)—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but then the Secretary of State for Transport—announced that the platforms at Waterloo international would be retained for domestic passenger use. We debated the issue again in March 2007, when I described our plans for Waterloo in some detail. In case hon. Members wish to consult the record, I should tell them that the debate was on 14 March in Westminster Hall.
	My officials have been assessing the scope and benefits of altering the platforms at Waterloo station for domestic services for some time; the process did not begin recently. A feasibility study completed in 2006 concluded that running South West Trains services to those platforms would deliver short-term performance benefits, and that long-term development options required further consideration. After the transfer of ownership of Waterloo, work to convert platform 20 for domestic services will start, and that capacity should be available from December 2008. That is our short-term plan.

Christopher Chope: What action did the Government take immediately after the publication of the Strategic Rail Authority report from Ove Arup in July 2005, which concluded by recommending extra work in various directions to narrow the options for the future?

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman be entirely surprised if I tell him that I do not have those details to hand? However, I shall be more than happy to write to him. Our proposal for the medium term is linked to the high level output specification objective of providing longer trains across the network to meet the expected growth rates forecast over the coming years. The scheme being considered by the Department and Network Rail could see longer commuter trains operating not only on the lines to Windsor and Reading, but on mainline suburban routes to Surbiton, Chessington and Hampton Court. Currently, services on these routes operate into the shortest platforms—platforms 1 to 4—of Waterloo.
	The Department's proposal would see services being shuffled across the existing station, with the Windsor services operating into and out of Waterloo international. That would allow the other lengthened commuter services to access longer platforms within the main Waterloo train shed. Clearly, work is already in hand to implement the Government's plans for Waterloo international to be redeployed for domestic services.
	The amendment seeks to go further and commits the Government to spending on the station for that purpose. That is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. Is the hon. Member for Wimbledon suggesting that a future Conservative Government, instead of putting commitments on major infrastructure changes into the high level output specification, which I assume his party will ultimately accept, would impose on the Secretary of State a statutory commitment that, not only in respect of Waterloo, but presumably in respect of every mainline station and all 23 main lines throughout the country, all those changes, improvements and spending commitments would be mandated in primary legislation? If he does not intend to do that, he is creating an unfortunate and illogical precedent today.
	There are many factors to consider when designing major changes to a busy station. There was a wide range of interested parties to consult. Adding the amendments to the Bill would not be the most effective way of securing the best outcome for passengers at Waterloo. Domestic services are scheduled to begin operation from the international terminal in December 2008. Under the support arrangements in place, we will continue to work on the long-term options.
	I conclude by referring to a comment from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). In his world the conversion of the platforms to domestic use could be done tomorrow—or perhaps, if he were being more realistic, Monday. I have to tell him that I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) that the engineering works, not only in the station but on the tracks outside Waterloo, are substantial.
	Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that I, my colleagues or the Department for Transport had the option of making the platforms immediately available to domestic services, but that instead of pursuing what he called that quick and easy option, we deliberately decided not to do so? That makes no sense. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that I, as the Minister with a vested political interest in making our rail network more effective, would not deliberately turn my back on a cheap and quick option.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Tom Harris: As I am addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Orpington, it would be better if he intervened now, rather than others.

John Horam: The Minister is an affable man and one of the more able Government Ministers. It is hard to explain to commuters why, although until recently Eurostar trains were going through Orpington and ending up in Waterloo 15 or 20 minutes later, ordinary trains cannot now do the same journey on the same tracks and arrive at Waterloo, relieving congestion on other routes. It seems simple to commuters. I am sure that there are engineering complexities that the Minister will cite, but surely they cannot be that bad.

Tom Harris: We are in danger of indulging in tabloid politics. With due respect, although the hon. Gentleman may be right to say that it seems patently obvious to the outside observer that when platforms are vacated by Eurostar, all we have to do is say to South West Trains, "You can use those platforms," of course it is not really that simple.

Stephen Hammond: rose—

Tom Harris: Let me make a relevant point that has not yet been made. I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Wimbledon. He is about to reply on behalf of his party, and in a few minutes he can say what he likes.
	There seems to be a view, unfortunately prevalent on the Opposition Benches, that the creation of extra platforms will mean extra capacity on the rail network. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) seems to be of the view that reopening a new railway line automatically creates extra capacity. However, such initiatives would be worthless unless we could buy new trains to run services on that new infrastructure.
	I have to tell the hon. Member for Orpington that South West Trains does not have the spare capacity to run extra services to Waterloo international. The idea that South West Trains could conjure up x number of new carriages to run new services through platforms that were previously used but are now vacant is frankly unbelievable. The Conservative party should put its money where its mouth is and welcome the high level output specification, which we announced in July, and which commits the Government to purchasing, through the franchising process, 1,300 new trains—some of which will go to South West Trains for exactly the purpose mentioned. I have to conclude that opening up vacant platforms is utterly useless unless there are new trains to provide services for customers.

Stephen Hammond: rose—

Norman Baker: rose—

Tom Harris: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

Stephen Hammond: A moment ago, the Minister accused me of intellectual acrobatics; actually, he is engaging in them himself. We all accept that platforms cannot just be turned on and off and that there are engineering works in Clapham. However, in making his defence, he has failed to explain in any way what has happened between November 2004 and now. When the decommissioning and vacation happened, the Government could have put the plans into operation immediately. His defence would have been stronger if he had mentioned those.

Tom Harris: I was trying to make the point that whatever work has been done in considering options for the domestic use of such platforms—and a great deal has—our major funding commitment for new carriages takes place between 2009 and 2014. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman's party has not welcomed that spending commitment.

Norman Baker: The Minister has set out the complexities fairly. However, will he tell us the last possible date, in the worst-case scenario, by which those platforms will come into use for domestic services?

Tom Harris: I expect the platforms to be in service by 2014. With that reassurance, I urge the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendment.

Christopher Chope: The Minister's response to the debate has been disappointing. We have not raised the matter as a party political issue, but he seems to want to turn it into one. People who commute into Waterloo, or have constituents who do so, will wonder why someone who represents Glasgow, South is commenting on what it is like to go into Waterloo station.
	We are not talking about needing new services straight away; we are saying that at the moment my constituents, those of other hon. Members, and I myself experience delay every day as we come into Waterloo. The trains stop between Clapham Junction and Waterloo because of the lack of capacity at Waterloo and restrictions at Clapham Junction. To give one example, until 1909 there were eight lines between Clapham Junction and Waterloo; now there are only seven. If the flyover between the two stations was removed, there could be eight lines. That would not need to result in extra services, but it would mean that the services already there could run on time, and probably take less time.
	Although the Government go on about how they have improved punctuality, they have actually increased the standard length of the journey. It certainly now takes longer to go from my constituency to Waterloo, and part of that is because of pressure at Waterloo. That pressure could be released if those extra platforms were brought into use. I hope that the Minister will spend some time visiting Waterloo to discuss with the people concerned exactly what the problem is and what could be done to put it right.

Stephen Hammond: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's arguments. I am not yet sure if he is going to say whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment, but let me repeat that I wish to press amendment No. 4 to a Division, because I am not happy with the response that we have heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it will assist the House if I indicate that were the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to withdraw his amendment, I would be disposed at the due time, after consideration of the next group of amendments, to allow a Division on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond).

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you for that indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I shall not seek leave to withdraw my amendment until I have finished my remarks; if I did, I would not be able to conclude what has been a really good—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not seeking to cut him off, as I had to on his lengthy point of order.

Christopher Chope: That is very fairly put, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the light of my earlier provocation.
	All the Minister has said is that he thinks that the platforms will be brought back into use by 2014. That is another six years away. Between now and 2014 we will be spending £500,000-plus a year on mothballing them, which is absolutely intolerable. That could still be mitigated, but it was avoidable had action been taken after the Strategic Rail Authority report from the consultants in July 2005.

Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman notice any comparisons or parallels between Waterloo international and the millennium dome?

Christopher Chope: I used to be the shadow Minister for the millennium dome, so I will not be drawn into a long debate about that saga. The millennium dome was, at all material times, a white elephant; Waterloo international is a very fine building that needs to be brought back into use straight away. The problem with the millennium dome was that it was difficult to find anybody who could make a commercial go of it, whereas everybody is saying, "Let's get Waterloo station back into full operational use as soon as possible."
	The Government talk about doing something by 2014. If they had a clear plan, the first thing that one would expect them to say—for example, to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who made an excellent speech—is, "The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is feasible," or, "That is not feasible." Of course, it would not be feasible if the bridge linking the old Eurostar line that goes over the railway tracks between Clapham Junction and Waterloo to allow services from Petts Wood and Orpington to come into Waterloo were taken away. What depresses me about this debate is that I would have expected a Minister to say, "That's a good idea—yes, we can do that," or, "That's a bad idea—it won't be practical because we think that our priority should be services coming in from the south-west." The fact that the Minister does not seem to know which of those options is to be used shows how far we are from reaching any conclusion.

Ian Taylor: Given that the Government have claimed credit for Crossrail, which has eventually been sorted out, should not they take the blame for not listening to the argument advanced by my hon. Friends and myself several years ago that thousands of commuters would be put out by the failure to integrate the platforms at Waterloo and make the investment at Clapham Junction? There seems to be a balance between Crossrail, where at last the Government have done something, and on Waterloo international, where they have failed.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, they have failed, and sooner rather than later, more and more people are going to realise the extent of that failure.
	I shall quote briefly paragraph 5(4) of the Strategic Rail Authority final report dated 11 July 2005:
	"Waterloo domestic station is one of the largest and busiest stations in London. Its 19 platforms are intensively used, particularly those serving the Main Line, Suburban and Windsor Lines destinations.
	The Waterloo area is currently a limited destination in itself, and most passengers arriving at Waterloo interchange onto other lines...Passenger circulation is a particular issue both in the main concourse and for interchange. Network Rail believe that the station is approaching the limit of its safe passenger handling capacity and that works will be required to increase passenger capacity if passenger numbers increase significantly. It is expected that at current rates of growth (and without any changes to Waterloo International), capacity will be reached by 2011."
	That is three years before the Minister says that the platforms at the former international station will be open. That information was available to the Government—I accept that it was not available to him, because he has become a Minister only recently—in July 2005. It is clear today that in the intervening period the Government have done absolutely nothing to address the issue.
	When my constituents find in 2011 that they cannot get into Waterloo because of passenger congestion, what will I say to them? I will say that there was an opportunity to increase capacity, but the Government declined to take it. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred to Crossrail. That is an incredibly expensive project. For a much smaller investment, the lives of tens of thousands of commuters into Waterloo could be completely transformed, with quicker, more reliable and more comfortable services, safer platforms and more circulation space for passengers.
	This has been a disappointing debate, because I had hoped that we would get a clearer picture from the Government, and that the impression I had before the debate that the Government did not have a clue where they were going with Waterloo international would be removed by the Minister's remarks. I am afraid that that feeling has been confirmed by the Minister's remarks, so the only way we have of showing our disapproval of the Government's laid-back attitude on this matter is to divide the House. The best thing to divide on would be amendment No. 4, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 7.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 3, page 1, line 5, at end add—
	'(3) In subsection (1) "rail services" refer only to those services that both originate and terminate in the United Kingdom.'.
	The Minister accused me of intellectual gymnastics. This amendment is full of intellectual clarity, so we shall have no problem with it. He will recognise the amendment because it is very similar to one that I tabled in Committee. I tabled it again because, as I said in Committee on reading the Minister's answer, we would like to seek further clarification, or to press the matter to a Division if we have a disappointing response.
	As the Minister said, clause 1 is intended to clear up any potential confusion about whether the Government can continue to provide financial support to the rail link and the services running on it, now that the construction phase is complete and the services are up and running. That is deemed necessary because any future buyer might be in some doubt about it, which is why the clause includes the words:
	"For the avoidance of doubt".
	The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to subsidise HS1 into its operational phase, but it is the stated intention of the Government that this power will be exercised in relation to domestic services only, and not to international ones. The explanatory notes to the Bill say as much:
	"the Secretary of State will provide revenue funding for domestic services operating on the CTRL".
	The Under-Secretary said:
	"It would be wrong for the UK taxpayer to subsidise services across the continent." ——[Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 13.]
	It is therefore strange that the Government's stated intention is not reflected on the face of the Bill. Clause 1 states that the Secretary of State may continue to provide funds
	"in relation to the rail link or railway services on it."
	However, a large proportion of services on the rail link will be international. Nothing in the Bill prevents the subsidy of services bound for or returning from continental Europe.
	The Bill states that
	"nothing in sections 31 to 33 of the 1996 Act prevents the powers of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Railways Act 2005... from being exercised in relation to the rail link or railways services on it."
	We contend that leaving the clause unamended will not restrict revenue funding to domestic services, as the Government require. Elsewhere, the clause uses the phrase:
	"For the avoidance of doubt".
	Let us ensure that doubt is avoided and ambivalence removed. The amendment would add a new subsection, which states that
	"'rail services' refer only to those services that both originate and terminate in the United Kingdom."
	We are led to believe that it is not the Government's intention to fund international services, so let us make it clear in the Bill.
	In Committee, I asked the Under-Secretary,
	"in extremis, does not the Bill allow the possibility of part of the service that Eurostar is running in the UK being open to revenue funding?"
	He replied:
	"In essence, if, in the short term, any extra subsidy were to be provided to Eurostar Ltd, such as through leasing stock agreements, the hon. Gentleman is right. That could be interpreted as being a short-term subsidy from the Government. However, as I have repeatedly said, it is not the intention of the Government publicly to provide any subsidy to Eurostar in the long term."— [Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 14.]
	The Under-Secretary's answer was extraordinarily revealing. Although he repeatedly said that it is not the Government's intention, there is a genuine possibility that the Government will not be able to fulfil their intention.
	If it is the Government's intention that there is revenue funding only for domestic services, let us include that in the Bill for the avoidance of doubt and ambiguity. The Government's current position appears to be that they offer revenue funding and support to domestic services and not to international services, but only in the long term, not in the short term. That is ludicrous. In Committee, the Under-Secretary told us that my amendment was unnecessary. He said that the power to support rail services under the 2005 Act extended only to the United Kingdom. That may be the case, but, as I pointed out, some of the trains that run on British soil are international services. As his answer showed, the Government may well subsidise some international services in the short term. Being in British territory does not necessarily make a train a domestic service.
	Does the Under-Secretary concede that, in the light of his reply in Committee, just because the Secretary of State's powers are restricted by the 2005 Act to funding only services in Great Britain, funding is not restricted to domestic services? Does he concede that some trains that run on British track are international services? If he concedes those points, does he admit that the current wording of clause 1 does not meet the Government's stated objective? For the avoidance of doubt, my amendment will help the Under-Secretary. I hope that he will accept it in that spirit of help.

Tom Harris: In response to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) that my answers in Committee were revealing, I assure him that that was not the intention. I am not sure whether my response to his questions will be any more persuasive or reassuring today than they were in Committee. Nevertheless, I will try.
	Let me say again that it is not the Government's intention to subsidise international services through a franchise or any similar arrangement. Furthermore, the power to support services in the 2005 Act extends only to Great Britain. The Secretary of State does not have the ability to fund continental train services. The current structure of Eurostar UK Ltd preserves the distinction between charges paid by London and Continental Railways and charges paid by the other owners—SNCF and SNCB, the national railway operators of France and Belgium respectively. The cost and revenue-sharing protocols under which Eurostar is managed ensure that LCR pays only the access charges on the UK side and half the charges for the tunnel.
	Clause 1 does not give the Secretary of State a new power. It does, however, clarify that she has the same commercial flexibility to support HS1 as she has for the national rail network. Technically, that would include the ability to support cross-channel train operators in the same way as domestic franchise operators are subsidised, but Eurostar is an open-access operator and therefore has no franchise arrangements with the Government. However, as Eurostar UK Ltd is historically loss making and relies on future public support, through the access charge loan and guarantees of its rolling stock leases, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it is fair to expect the company to continue to require support in the short to medium term if it is to remain financially viable and be able to run services.
	The access charge loan has a limit of £184 million at January 1997 prices, which in current value terms will be roughly £500 million next year. Eurostar UK's rolling stock leases currently have a capital value of £175 million. The amendment would call into question the Secretary of State's ability to provide either the funding that has already been agreed through the access charge loan, the guarantees of rolling stock leases or any other means. That would place Eurostar in an unsustainable position, which would affect the value of HS1, too. Despite the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, far from adding clarity, the amendment would increase the likelihood of doubt about the Secretary of State's powers under the clause. I therefore hope that he will see fit to withdraw it.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister and have no doubt that his stated intention is that no subsidy should be given to international operations. I have also listened carefully to what he said about Eurostar. However, I fail to see how the amendment could do anything other than add clarity.

Tom Harris: Trust me.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister may say that, but I have learnt in life that that is not always a wise thing to do, although I know him to be a generous, affable and able man.
	I accept the Minister's explanation of why he thinks the amendment is not necessary. However, we shall watch carefully to ensure that the short-term funding that he says is necessary does not extend into long-term funding. If that happened, that would be contrary to the Government's stated intention and become a problem for them. With those caveats, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 4, page 1, line 5, at end add—
	'( ) The powers of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Railways Act 2005 shall be exercised in such a way so as to ensure that assets associated with the rail link at Waterloo Station are developed for the purpose of providing domestic rail services'.— [Stephen Hammond.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 259.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Power of Office of rail regulation to charge fees

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 9, page 2, line 8, leave out from 'as' to 'in' in line 9 and insert
	'is reasonably incurred by the Office of Rail Regulation'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert
	'but such further notice shall not include any increase to the fee payable in the original notice attributable to the fee remaining unpaid after the date specified in the original notice.'.

Greg Knight: Given that my amendment has been signed not only by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) but by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), to whom I am obliged, it would not be stretching the truth to say that it has the ring of an all-party amendment.
	Clause 4 gives the Office of Rail Regulation power to charge fees, stating that
	"the Office of Rail Regulation may by notice require a rail link undertaker to pay a fee in respect of the exercise of any of the Office of Rail Regulation's functions in relation to the rail link."
	My concern relates to subsection (2), which states
	"The amount of a fee under subsection (1) in any case shall be—
	(a) such amount as the Office of Rail Regulation considers to represent the costs reasonably incurred by it in the exercise of the function in relation to the rail link".
	As I said in Committee, what worries me is that, in effect, the Office of Rail Regulation will be advocate, judge and jury in its own cause. It will surely never admit that the fee it wishes to charge is unreasonable. Therefore, there is no objective test of whether the fee imposed is reasonable to a third party.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend know whether this form of words is unique to the ORR and the Bill, or is there the same form of words for all self-financing regulatory authorities?

Greg Knight: I do not know the answer to that, but my concerns nevertheless remain. If this wording is used elsewhere, however, perhaps I should start a campaign to amend the wording in other statutes similarly. If we were to have a profligate or wasteful ORR, it could cover its high-spending ways by imposing fees that are higher than necessary but that it decrees reasonable.
	Amendment No. 9 would change the wording so that the fee payable in any case would be such an amount as
	"is reasonably incurred by the Office of Rail Regulation".
	In other words, it would introduce an objective test, so that in any disputed case that might come before the courts, they would be able to say whether that is a reasonable amount. That is how we should proceed, and the amendment's wording is far better than the original wording in the Bill.
	I began to make this point in Committee, and the Minister stopped me in my tracks. He said he had listened to my point, and that if I were to table an amendment on Report:
	"I shall be happy to consider it, but I make no promises at this stage on whether it will be acceptable to the Government." ——[Official Report, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 21.]
	When we started on the process of considering the Bill and the Minister was facing questions, he rather dismissed my point, but when I returned to it in Committee proper it was clear that he had been reflecting on my remarks and he generously said that he would consider such a suggestion on Report. He has subsequently indicated to me that he is minded to accept this amendment.
	I do not want to blight the Minister's career, but may I say to him that he has behaved as a model Minister in this instance? He listened to the argument and felt that a fair point was being made from those on the Opposition Benches, and he has graciously conceded that the amendment should be made.
	I therefore hope that no Member will disagree with amendment No. 9. I am always nervous when I see my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in the Chamber, because I know how volatile he is, but I hope that I am taking him with me in my arguments.
	Amendment No. 2 also relates to the power to charge fees under clause 4, but seeks to make a change by adding at the end of proposed new section 21A(6),
	"but such further notice shall not include any increase to the fee payable in the original notice attributable to the fee remaining unpaid after the date specified in the original notice."
	Proposed new section 21A(6) gives the ORR power to revise a fee notice that it has already issued by issuing a subsequent notice. My concern is that if there were an unreasonable person in the ORR they could issue a notice, and if it was not paid by the time stated in the notice they could issue a second notice increasing the fee—perhaps even adding interest on to it—and that subsequent notice would then supersede the original fee notice issued. That is not how the ORR should behave, but it could behave like that under the Bill as drafted. My amendment No. 2, which I am delighted my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has signed, would prevent that from happening. In other words, the ORR would not be able to issue a subsequent notice mentioning a higher fee solely because the original fee was not paid on time.
	The Minister may be less convinced about amendment No. 2, but I ask him to reflect on the points I have made. Surely it is not proper for the ORR, or indeed for any body, to be able to revise a fee and thus impose a penalty on the person due to pay it merely on the grounds that they have been late in paying it. I hope that the Minister will give me a full house today by accepting that amendment too.

Stephen Hammond: I shall not detain the House long. I am delighted that amendment No. 9 has been selected. As my right hon. Friend has been saying, the question of fees charged by the ORR was raised during some lengthy deliberations in Committee. He has explained that the intention in Committee was to ensure that the fee was consistent with the fee levied on operators of other parts of the network and that it was based on the costs reasonably incurred, and not on anything else. He started suggesting some sensible changes in Committee and he has proposed them today, so I am pleased to have added my name to the amendment. As he said, under the amendment the ORR would no longer be assessing itself in terms of reasonable costs. Thus, the test of reasonableness would be made much more impartial, and therefore fair and credible. This excellent amendment improves the wording, and I hope that the Minister will support it.
	My right hon. Friend also discussed amendment No. 2, which I also support. It would ensure that the fees could not be raised by the ORR upon a revision of a notice notifying a fee—he has just elucidated that important principle—and it represents an improvement to the clause. The amendment is sensible and rational, and it needs to be taken with amendment No. 9. Those amendments, taken together, improve the clause as drafted.

Peter Soulsby: As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said, I have added my name to amendment No. 9. I did so because, as he suggested in Committee, it makes good sense to clarify the clause's intention. It may seem a small point, but it is an important one, because, as he said, the clause as originally drafted would have left the ORR as judge and jury about what was reasonable in its own case. The amendment suggests a sensible alternative—the test of reasonableness should be objective rather than internal to that organisation—so I am pleased to support it. I share his hope that the Minister will accept it. I am sure that he will because—I say this as we are using the word—he is a very reasonable man.
	I understand the point that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire make about amendment No. 2. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said, such provision would be necessary only were we to envisage a situation where the ORR was acting in a grossly unreasonable way. I suggest that it is not necessary to write that into the Bill. There are other ways to ensure that persons acting in that capacity behave reasonably without setting specific provisions. I support amendment No. 9, but not amendment No. 2.

Christopher Chope: I, too, support amendment No. 9. I was a little disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was unable to answer my intervention, because he normally brings such intellectual rigour to our debates. He has normally done his homework and research, but it appears that he has not found out the answer to the question. I do not think that it is purely speculative. Paragraph 15 of the explanatory notes that have been kindly supplied by the Government states, on the subject of the charging regime:
	"This clause allows the ORR to charge those responsible for operating the CTRL a fee calculated by reference to the costs it reasonably incurs in the exercise of any such function"—
	and so on. The paragraph continues:
	"This is similar to the position on the national rail network".
	It thereby suggests that the wording that my right hon. Friend wants to amend is already extant in other legislation. My concern is that we should have some consistency.

Greg Knight: If my hon. Friend rereads the explanatory notes, he will see that they use the word "similar" rather than "the same".

Christopher Chope: I do not need to reread them to know that the words "the same" are not used. However, the words
	"similar to the position on the national rail network"
	infer that someone should be put on notice that the same wording may be used in other legislation to create a similar situation. The situation will merely be similar, but the wording might be the same.

Tom Harris: In an attempt to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity, I understand that such a form of words—or a similar form—is not uncommon in other legislation. I hope that he will not press me on which pieces of legislation, because I do not have that information to hand. If his case is that the wording is inappropriate in the Bill and is therefore inappropriate in other legislation, he should be careful that he does not countermand his argument. It is clear that the ORR, in following its general practice when charging fees across the rest of the rail network, has not charged unreasonable amounts.

Christopher Chope: I am not just concerned about the ORR, but I am grateful for the Minister's assurance.
	If the Minister's information is that wording similar to the unamended wording in the Bill is extant in other legislation, I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Government will amend it. That can be done without the need for a long-winded piece of full legislation under the deregulatory regime introduced by the Government in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Since that Act was passed, I have noticed a great paucity of measures brought forward under it. At the end of the debate, the Minister might seek to break the mould and suggest that that the modest deregulatory measure that we have suggested should be applied to all other legislation that is so worded. I hope that that is useful.
	On amendment No. 2, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is on to a good point. I should much prefer it if people who paid the fee on time or earlier got a discount. That would be better than penalising late payment in the way envisaged in the Bill.
	Unamended, the Bill puts the ORR in a position that is different from the one occupied by everyone else in the country. If I provide a service for which the bill is not paid on time, I cannot arbitrarily increase the size of that bill to reflect its late payment. I can issue a writ or summons to recover the money, and I might be able to charge a modest rate of interest and claim any associated costs, but the Bill goes rather further. That is why I believe that my right hon. Friend for East Yorkshire is on to a good thing with amendment No. 2.

Tom Harris: The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is right to say that there has been some debate already in Committee and in the House about whether clause 4 gives the ORR the right to decide, without restriction, what fees are appropriate for exercising its relevant functions. The current wording of the Bill says that the fee could be
	"such amount as the Office of Rail Regulation considers to represent the costs reasonably incurred by it".
	I assure the House that it is not the Government's understanding or intention that the Bill should allow the ORR to charge unreasonable fees, nor that the ORR would consider itself able to do so. The Government expect that any fee the ORR might charge under clause 4 would be reasonable, on an objective basis.
	The recollection of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about our earlier discussions is correct. I was grateful to him for raising the matter then, but I believe that my objection to his proposal, which I rejected, was both genuine and robust. He raised the matter again in the full Public Bill Committee debate, and he is right to say that I subsequently undertook to consider in a positive light any amendment that he might decide to table.
	I did that, and I even thought about the matter over the Christmas recess—after all, what else would one do at such a time but consider amendments to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill? I have concluded that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has made a valid point and, although I do not believe that the Bill as written would create the problems that he has predicted, I am persuaded that it would be improved by amendment No. 9. I can therefore tell the House that the Government are willing to accept that amendment.
	I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire on drumming up so much support on both sides of the House for that amendment.  [ Interruption. ] These are the jokes, folks. However, I must make two qualifications—that he should not get used to me being so accommodating, and that I am not inclined to be so generous in respect of amendment No. 2 .
	Clause 4, as amended, allows the ORR to charge a reasonable fee and then to arrange for that fee to be paid. The ORR has to issue a notice informing the rail link undertaker that will be the new owner of HS1 of the amount of the fee and the date by which it must be paid. Unpaid fees will be pursued through the ordinary process of civil debt recovery.
	However, subsections (6) and (7 ) of clause 4 allow the ORR to revise the notices that it issues. These two provisions have been included in the interests of being fair and reasonable. For example, if the ORR finds that it has charged HS1 too much, it can correct the original notice. That would prevent the ORR having to secure payment of the original amount and then arrange a refund later.
	Amendment No. 2 is aimed at a slightly different scenario. In effect, it would prevent the ORR from charging interest in the event of non-payment of a notice. That is standard commercial practice and, as I said in Committee, we are all used to having to pay extra for bills that are paid late. The wording of the clause as it stands simply allows the ORR the same rights as any other organisation when dealing with a debtor.
	The Opposition are understandably proud of their links with small businesses. They know that the late payment of bills is a major and serious problem for many small and medium-sized enterprises. Without that right to charge extra on unpaid bills, many small businesses would be left in some difficulty. I hope that Opposition Members will extend the same rights to the ORR, because the same principle applies.
	Amendment No. 9 would also mean that any costs, including interest, that the ORR charges HS1 would have to be reasonably incurred—whether something is reasonable being the objective test that the right hon. Gentleman requires. That provides sufficient protection for the HS1 infrastructure from unfair fees, so amendment No. 2 is neither necessary nor appropriate, and I hope that he will not press it.

Greg Knight: I am delighted by the Minister's response to my arguments in favour of amendment No. 9. It is pleasing to see that the generosity that he exhibited in Committee was not an aberration. I am also pleased to hear that I was in his thoughts at Christmas. I have to admit that he was not in mine.
	I am grateful to the Minister for the fair way in which he has dealt with this matter. I never argued that the clause as drafted was without restriction. My objection was the test was such that the organisation imposing the fee had the right to be judge and jury in its own cause. I am pleased that he has taken the point and that we now have—or will have in a moment—an objective test in clause 4.
	Clause 4 as amended by amendment No. 9 means that amendment No. 2 is less essential, as the Minister pointed out. The test overall, being an objective one now, is whether the fee, even if it includes interest, is reasonably incurred. Because of that, and because the Minister has dealt with amendment No. 9 in a fair and reasonable way and invited Government Members to support it, it would be ungracious and unreasonable of me to divide the House on amendment No. 2.
	 Amendment agreed to.
	 Order for T hird Reading read.

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House why we introduced the Bill in the first place. The channel tunnel rail link was one of the largest construction projects ever to be attempted in this country, and it opened on time and within budget only a few months ago. It was rightly hailed as a success story, and St. Pancras station is acclaimed as a triumph of Victorian engineering and modern design.
	Passengers arriving at St. Pancras can now travel to Paris in two hours and 15 minutes and to Brussels in one hour and 51 minutes. As it powers through the countryside at up to 186 mph, travellers looking out of the windows of Eurostar will see the evidence of the £10 billion in private sector funding going into regeneration and large-scale development along the route. From 2009, commuters from Kent will experience impressive journey time reductions through the brand new fleet of class 395 Hitachi trains, which will also be used to operate the high-speed Javelin service during the 2012 Olympics.
	The successful opening of High Speed 1 is one of the achievements of London and Continental Railways' corporate structure, and of the role played by Government. The next step in the journey will involve the separation of LCR's three different elements—the infrastructure, the land interests, and the UK stake in Eurostar—into three sustainable self-standing businesses. Our intention in restructuring is to put in place a new, affordable corporate structure that maximises value for taxpayers.
	The Bill will facilitate restructuring. The objective of the competitive sale process that will be completed during the next three years is to secure value for taxpayers from the project. Though small, technical, and financial in nature, the Bill is crucial to delivering that goal. It confirms that the Secretary of State can continue to provide financial support to the rail link in the same way as at present, and it will remove potential duplication between two different regulatory regimes for access contracts and clarify the role of the Office of Rail Regulation. It will also give the ORR the ability to charge for functions that it carries out in relation to High Speed 1, provided of course that those charges are reasonable. Finally and vitally, the Bill will add the word "operation" to the definition of a development agreement in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
	I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for the careful consideration and support that they have given the Bill during the past three months. The able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) in Committee and the useful and succinct contributions of most Members have assisted the Bill's speedy passage through the House. I look forward to monitoring its progress in the other place. In the meantime, I commend it to the House.

Stephen Hammond: I was wondering whether the conclusion of the Under-Secretary's speech was a challenge to us to be succinct. This is a small Bill—it has only six clauses—but behind it lies a unique British achievement. High Speed 1 from St. Pancras launched its first service last year. It left to universal acclaim and accomplished the unique feat of achieving recognition on the front pages of all the national newspapers. The opening ceremony the week before was a tribute to British engineering and construction. Those of us fortunate enough to be there will remember our sense of excitement and achievement that night for a long time. The reinstated single-span roof is that achievement's crowning glory.
	High Speed 1, formerly known as the channel tunnel rail link, stretches from the mouth of the channel through the Kent countryside to east London and Stratford, terminating at St. Pancras. It runs for 109 km, or 67.7 miles. Although the London to Paris service is the railway's focus, we must remember that about 40 per cent. of capacity will be reserved for high-speed domestic services from north Kent to Stratford. That will open up the City and docklands in central London, another exceptional achievement of the channel tunnel rail link.
	On 20 February 1996, the Conservative Government awarded to London and Continental Railways the contract to build and operate the channel tunnel rail link. Who would have dreamed then that we would be able to travel at 186 mph through the countryside to France and beyond? The challenge is to ensure that our country can connect to the trans-European network and to expand high-speed rail in the United Kingdom. That is why I am delighted that the incoming Conservative Government are committed to a feasibility study of high-speed rail.
	As the Under-Secretary said, the Bill is intended to make minor amendments to the current arrangements. That represents a general acceptance that the structure that contributed to LCR's success in delivering the project might not be the best structure for the future or for operational purposes. The Government and LCR undertook an evaluation of the restructuring options for LCR, which resulted in the Bill before us.
	In Committee and on Report, we have examined this relatively small Bill at great length—some might say exhaustively; the Under-Secretary probably did. Although the Opposition accept that exceptional projects require exceptional powers to ensure their facilitation and operation, the powers should still be subject to scrutiny for evidence of abuse. We have indeed subjected the Bill to scrutiny, although I remain concerned that clauses 2 and 3 grant truly exceptional powers, the continuing need for which is contestable. We shall look carefully at the operation of those two clauses.
	The Bill is short and largely technical, but it is important. The channel tunnel rail link has been a great success for the United Kingdom. The prospect of Eurostar and domestic High Speed 1 being operational is exciting, and if the Bill facilitates that, we should assist its passage. I hope that it will enable the operational phase of the channel tunnel rail link to be as successful as the construction phase, and that in due course St. Pancras will be not only the centre of a UK high-speed rail network, but part of an international high-speed rail network.

Norman Baker: I largely agree with the comments of the Minister and the spokesman for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), both of whom support the Bill in principle. The Minister correctly says that it is a small, technical Bill, but it has significant implications for taking forward the channel tunnel link.
	It is clear that we now have a railway of considerable capacity and one that we can be proud of, taking us from the channel tunnel through to St. Pancras. Many of us who used Eurostar when it first opened were embarrassed that we could travel through the French countryside so fast, yet clank around at probably 18.6 mph on the way from the Kent coast up to London. That has been dealt with. After a slow start, the Government have moved fast to help in their own way with the completion of the St. Pancras project, and the country is better off for that.
	We on the Liberal Democrat Benches look forward to the day when high speed services do not stop at St. Pancras but run much further north, so that people from Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool will be able to access high speed services and travel to Paris and Brussels without the need to change in London. I hope that the Government will bring forward plans to examine those possibilities sooner rather than later.
	As we send the Bill on to the other place, as I hope we shall shortly, I should like to highlight a couple of points that it would be helpful for their lordships to examine. The first is about the implications of the potential sale of the infrastructure. The Minister is right to talk about the three constituent parts, but I would be concerned if the track were ultimately not owned by Network Rail. That would be inconsistent with the rest of the rail network, and it is difficult to understand how a sensible arrangement could be reached with suburban or domestic trains running on infrastructure not owned by Network Rail. It would be much cleaner if it were owned and run by Network Rail. I hope that their lordships will examine that.
	The second matter, which we have not considered today but which is important, is freight movement. The Minister said at column 1123 on Second Reading:
	"High Speed 1 might be appropriate for freight usage"—
	might be appropriate. It should be made clearer in another place how freight will be able to access the line. I hope that that will not be, as the Minister said,
	"on a completely commercial basis".—[ Official Report, 20 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 1123.]
	If that were the case, freight might be excluded.

Tom Harris: It is absolutely the Government's expectation that freight will use High Speed 1, but the hon. Gentleman should know that in this country freight is an entirely commercial operation. Any freight movements on High Speed 1 will therefore have to be commercial. I am sure that that is welcomed in all parts of the House.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for that. I was suggesting not that freight should not be commercial, but that it might be in the interests of individual parties to maximise the number of passenger trains to the exclusion of freight. That would be unhelpful.

Tom Harris: indicated assent.

Norman Baker: I see that the Minister agrees.
	Having made those two simple points, I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and wish it well in the Lords.

Greg Knight: I join those who have contributed to this Third Reading debate in welcoming the amended Bill and wishing it well. I understand that the Government give £6.5 billion annually in subsidy to the rail network; that is a sum of which any Government should be proud. However, it is interesting that, despite all the congestion problems that we have heard about, our railways still carry only 6 per cent. of all passenger travel. Some 84 per cent. of journeys are still undertaken by car. Although the channel tunnel rail link is rightly a priority, at some point in the not-too-distant future there needs to be either a shift or an increase in transport funding so that road users are treated equitably.
	I thank the Minister again for the fair-minded way in which he has dealt with the Bill and for his approach throughout. If there is any justice in this world, he will be made Secretary of State at the next reshuffle.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Electricity

That the draft Electricity and Gas (Carbon Emissions Reduction) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 7th February, do adjourn till Monday 18th February 2008. —[ Mr. Khan .]
	 Question agreed to.

SRI LANKA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Khan.]

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting for today's Adjournment debate my suggested subject of Government support for the peace process in Sri Lanka. I had previously applied for a debate on the subject, but it could not happen. Mr. Speaker has kindly acceded to my request to reinstate the debate today. Little did I know that the debate would be as timely as it has turned out; I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for understanding the appropriateness of this debate at this time.
	It is sad—this year should have been one of great celebration for all the peoples of Sri Lanka. The 60th anniversary of the independence of Ceylon from the United Kingdom falls on 4 February. In normal circumstances, that would be an occasion for great celebration across that beautiful country. Furthermore, this year is the 30th anniversary of Sri Lanka's change to an executive presidency. In the same year, under that constitution, Tamil was recognised, with English and Sinhala, as an official language. The country's history suggests that there is much for celebration, but that is not how it has been in recent years.
	Since I was elected to this place in 1983 there has been a state of emergency and a continuing difficulty that is most easily and sadly described as an effective civil war. It has continued month in, month out, and last year ended in sad circumstances—violence, attacks, deaths and a very dim prospect. Sadly, this year has begun equally badly in two senses. First, the Government, for reasons that I can understand but that are ultimately misguided, announced on 3 January that they were to terminate the ceasefire agreement that was entered into in 2002, and yesterday that ceasefire agreement ended. In parallel with that, over recent weeks there has been continuing violence, with attacks in the north and the south, the assassination of a Minister and of another Member of Parliament, and the killing of innocent people—people absolutely not part of the political process, including children—on bus journeys.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that my view, like that, I imagine, of every single person in the House and elsewhere, is that violence is unacceptable, that killing other people in the pursuit of political ends is not the way forward, and that, as other places have learned—I welcome to his place the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who had direct experience of this in our country, in Northern Ireland—there must be an alternative route that says that violence is put aside and people talk to each other until they reach a solution.
	So we have a dear Commonwealth country, with huge friendship between all its peoples and our people, now entering its 32nd year of unrest and civil war. Let me give just two or three sentences of background—shared knowledge among people here, but more for the record than for our debate. It is a country of about 20 million people, or thereabouts, three quarters of whom—approximately; I am not trying to be overly precise—are from a Sinhalese background and an eighth of whom, about 3 million people, are from a Tamil background, with other smaller groups. Two thirds of the population are Buddhist by faith adherence, about 15 per cent. are Hindu, about 7.5 per cent. are Muslim, and slightly less than that are Christians and people of other faiths. In this country, we have, best estimates tell us, about 200,000, or probably nearer to a quarter of a million, people from Sri Lanka, almost equally divided between Sinhalese people and Tamil people, contributing wonderfully to our nation in every respect, in business, in teaching, in medicine, in the professions, in culture, in sport—just a fantastic contribution.
	I have no vested constituency interest in this issue. I have friends who are Sinhalese and Tamil, but I do not have a huge Sri Lankan population in my bit of London, although friends in other parts of London have significant Sri Lankan populations. I am not doing this because I have 10 per cent. of my electorate to address and want to deal with their concerns.
	Back in the '70s, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was formed as a liberation struggle movement. We know, in general terms, what its history has been. It led to the fact that in 2001, in this Parliament, we proscribed it as an organisation in this country. In May 2005, the European Union took a similar view. As a result, one of the players—an organisation that is not going to go away, whatever the Government and other people may wish—is officially illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world. We are familiar with that in this country, as we similarly banned the Irish Republican Army—the IRA—and placed restrictions on Sinn Fein in all those past days in Northern Ireland.
	Just over two years ago, we had the latest political resolution when, in a very hotly contested presidential election, current President Rajapakse was elected by a narrow majority of 50.3 per cent. to 48.3 per cent. over Ranil Wickremesinghe, with the two big coalition parties providing the two main candidates. This is a country where, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, people in high office have often had a very difficult time personally. One Prime Minister and one President have been assassinated, as have a Foreign Minister and many others. As in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, families who have been involved in politics have sadly been afflicted by killing and terrible personal experiences. No one would wish that on anyone. A coalition Government are in place, who reflect the view of the President, by and large. There is a majority who reflect his view.
	In this House, we have sought, along with the Minister, who has always been extremely co-operative, and his fellow Ministers, to debate regularly how the Government and others in the UK can assist in the peace process. I pay tribute not only to the right hon. Member for Torfaen, but to people such as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and other colleagues who have taken a consistent interest and sought to facilitate progress. Some of my colleagues who cannot be here today were with me yesterday at a meeting, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for St. Ives (Andrew George). The former has constituents from Sri Lanka, and the latter does not, but they have taken a concerned interest and want proper development, economic success and prosperity for Sri Lanka. The Minister made the Government's position very clear at Foreign and Commonwealth questions last week. He called for the Sri Lankan Government to go down a different route to try to come to a peaceful and just conclusion. Sadly, that did not happen, and formally, as of yesterday, the ceasefire is at an end.
	Last night, in the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall, there was a large gathering of the Tamil community. Colleagues from all three major parties met people to hear them express their concerns, which they did moderately but with great anxiety. I know that many of them have lost relatives; they have had family killed or injured. Many cannot get things through to their relatives, particularly if they are in the Jaffna peninsula in the north. At 4 o'clock today, a petition was presented to No. 10 expressing the concern of the Tamil community here that the ceasefire should be reinstated and that the peace process should continue.
	During this period of catastrophe, according to the best figures available—Government figures that are not fundamentally disputed—70,000 people may have been killed and 1 million may have been displaced. On top of all that, as if it were not enough, the tsunami struck, and a further 30,000 or 40,000 people were killed on Boxing day just over three years ago; hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. This country desperately needs peace in order that it can have prosperity. I will not go through the litany of killing, but in the past two years probably 5,000 people have been killed—estimates vary—and that has continued, as I said, even in recent weeks.
	I shall make a linked point before I come to my reflections and suggestions. I have been in touch with the Sri Lankan high commissioner here, and I am grateful for her considered response to my request for an accurate, up-to-date statement of the Sri Lankan position, to ensure that I was not misrepresenting it.
	We have always had a good relationship, though a tense one, as we have debated the issues. According to independent reports, the economy is suffering as a consequence of what has happened there. There is growth in the economy, but the trade deficit has widened by 66 per cent. in a year, and exports have gone down. In November, imports went up, and stocks are going down. Probably some 1 million people are in poverty, mainly in areas affected most by the conflict. That situation will go on, and it is a worldwide phenomenon. On the BBC World Service this morning I heard someone reflect that it is always the case in the developing world that conflict absolutely and directly exacerbates poverty.
	The Government and international bodies, such as Amnesty and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, have a similar view as to what has happened in the peace process. There is not really any international dispute.
	The agreement that was reached in 2002 followed unilateral efforts to hold a ceasefire for a month and see how that went. The ceasefire has been piecemeal and inconsistent, and of course, as everybody knows, it has not been universally respected. However, in the middle of it, suggestions for proper devolution were made. Proposals for an autonomous Tamil province or part of the country were on the table. I do not mean proposals for local government but a new constitutional settlement, such as, in some ways, we have achieved here, and as has happened in many other parts of the world. Things went well, but then the past President intervened and sacked people from various Ministries and progress stalled.
	People keep hoping, but their hopes are repeatedly dashed. After the tsunami, people hoped that it might, paradoxically, be an incentive to get together but that was not to be. It is troubling that there is a universal view that, despite countries such as ours linking their development assistance to the peace process—the Government agreed a strategy in 2002 that was rightly clear about that—human rights have been poor. That remains a general understanding. The Foreign Office website states:
	"The Sri Lankan government has taken steps to improve its very poor human rights records of the 1980s and the 1990s."
	Yet records for recent years and months confirm that serious cause for concern remains.
	Amnesty International's 2007 report states that the United Nations special rapporteur reported in March on a visit made some months previously and on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The rapporteur said that freedom of expression, movement, association and participation were threatened, especially for Tamil and Muslim civilians.
	In May, the President appointed new people to the human rights commission, which then no longer appeared to fulfil its constitutional requirements or the international requirements for independence. In September, the supreme court ruled that there was no legal basis for the UN Human Rights Committee to hear cases from Sri Lanka. That was regrettable. As the year went on, international human rights bodies raised concerns about the escalating human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. That has been on the agenda at the Security Council.
	I do not say that those leading the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam do not share responsibility, as insurgents, for the situation. However, it is clear from reports that Sri Lankan Government responses have not been confined to those acting militarily. They have intervened in the lives of civilians and gone far beyond what is internationally recognised as acceptable. I understand the provocation when suicide bombing happens and ships get blown up, but Sri Lanka spends $1 billion on defence—money that should logically be spent on development.
	Amnesty International says that last year, humanitarian aid agencies were unable to reach many of those at risk in the north and east. From August, aid supplies to the north were obstructed by the closure of the Jaffna peninsula road and a sea blockade by the LTTE.

Lee Scott: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that, with the motorway remaining closed and the ceasefire having ended, the humanitarian crisis can only get worse? The international community must do something about that urgently.

Simon Hughes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman spoke at the same meeting as me last night, although he was there before me. The community was grateful that he was there. The A9, the main road to Jaffna, is the only appropriate and established thoroughfare for a huge community on the peninsula in the north. It has been closed for a long time; it was reopened but is now closed again. Last night I heard at first hand people saying that they could not get medical supplies, food or money through to their families in that part of the country.
	The Sri Lankan Government say that although the road is closed, supplies can be delivered by boat and so on, but that is clearly not the experience of people here who talk to us. I do not mean that those people are inventing or imagining that, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the road needs to be reopened. Whatever the decision about the ceasefire this month, I cannot believe that it is beyond the competence of the Government and the LTTE to agree that the road can be opened and protected, so that people can go to their homes and supplies can reach people who live in the north.

Jeremy Corbyn: Earlier the hon. Gentleman mentioned the tsunami and the aid that went to its victims. I am sure that he is aware that there is still huge anger about the distribution of that aid and a feeling among those in the Tamil community in the north and east that they were deprived of necessary aid. Does he not think that there is still some point in pursuing that as part of confidence building?

Simon Hughes: Yes I do. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development might be able to help us on that matter. There is now independent confirmation that large amounts of the aid given have not gone where they were intended to go. That is a tragedy, given the absolute destruction caused in those areas. It must be right for there to be further investigation, conducted independently of the Sri Lankan Government, into where that money has gone, and for us to seek to liberate it to rebuild those communities. The hon. Gentleman is right about that.

Brian Binley: I had the good fortune to go to Sri Lanka two years ago, specifically to see how aid money was being spent. Although I recognise all the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised—he is absolutely right—equally I recognise how difficult it was, in a war zone, to rebuild and replenish the badly damaged area in the north around Jaffna. I got the impression that a Sri Lankan Government body comprising a group of young people was working very hard indeed and achieving a sizeable success in replenishing some of those areas in the north. I understand the difficulties and concerns; none the less, I want to inject some balance and say that, judging by my investigations when I was there, the Sri Lankan Government seemed to be trying their very best under difficult circumstances.

Simon Hughes: I have not been back to Sri Lanka since the tsunami, so I cannot comment from experience on the ground, although I know that the Under-Secretary of State has been. I do not doubt that much work has been done by Sri Lankan Government agencies and international non-governmental organisations, but often—I do not know whether this was true of the Minister's visit—Ministers from other countries, international agencies or parliamentarians cannot go where they would like to go, because the Sri Lankan Government say that it is unsafe. People therefore end up going where it is possible to see good things happening. I have no idea whether the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) asked to go to Jaffna and the north, for example, and whether he was free to travel there—

Brian Binley: indicated assent.

Simon Hughes: He was. I am reassured by what he says; all I know is that there are internationally authenticated concerns that much of the money has not ended up where it should have ended up, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) intervened on me to say. I am not attributing personal blame, but if that is happening, it is no good.
	I have two final points of concern. There are still huge numbers of unlawful killings—it is not me saying that, but Amnesty. Several hundred extra-judicial killings were reported last year, which, as Amnesty makes clear, were carried out by forces of the Government, the Karuna group—a splinter group of the LTTE that is reportedly co-operating with Government forces—the LTTE and other armed opposition groups. We are not talking about one-side-of-the coin activity. The situation is complex, with many involved in taking people out of what they see as a political battle.
	Both sides are also still recruiting child soldiers. Apparently the LTTE recruited 1,500 or so child soldiers a year ago, while more than 100 were reportedly recruited in Government-controlled areas in the east by the Karuna group. A special adviser to the UN reported in November—two months ago—that Sri Lankan Government forces had been actively involved in forcibly recruiting children. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is even more worrying if anyone connected to the Government or Government forces is involved. The world is trying to stop conflict, and in particular it is trying to ensure that it does not start with youngsters being brought in, as they are the most vulnerable people.
	There have been numerous detailed reports about torture in police custody and so on, but my final point on this report is that an international commission of inquiry was announced by the President in September to investigate abductions, disappearances and extra-judicial killings. In the end, however, it was changed to being a national investigation with an international observer group. There are real concerns about the independence of the information gathering and assessment involved.
	I guess that that is why, at the end of the year, some pretty robust statements were made by independent bodies. The programme director of Amnesty International for the Asia Pacific region said this month:
	"The withdrawal of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, in addition to the downgrading of the National Human Rights Commission by the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions which has brought its credibility into question, leaves a vacuum in independent investigation and monitoring of human rights abuses."
	Norway, the United States, Japan and the European Union have also made clear their unhappiness at what has happened in connection with the ending of the ceasefire. I am grateful that our Government have made their position clear in that regard. I am also grateful that Norway, which has played an absolutely central role throughout by seeking to be a peacekeeper, to arbitrate and to initiate, is still willing to do that. I had the privilege of meeting the man who had led that exercise when he was passing through London just before Christmas, and I want to thank him and his team, and the Norwegian Government, for continuing to offer their assistance in very difficult circumstances.
	I want to reflect on what the Sri Lankan Government have told me, to ensure that I am not in any way misrepresenting it. They have a view that the position of the LTTE, and the more extreme Tamil position, is to create a mono-ethnic, mono-political separate state. Some hold that view, but in my opinion it can never be possible in this world to have mono-ethnic mono-political states. Look at the history of the Balkans; look at anywhere else. No state is going to be like that; it is not a sustainable option.
	Many people hold a different view, which is that self-governance within a federal, or confederal, solution is a viable option. Countries flourish, blossom and grow under such systems. India and Pakistan are examples of such states, as are—nearer to home—many of the European Union countries. One has to try to reflect the different aspirations and views involved. The negotiations looked as though they were going down that road and becoming much more realistic. It is unlikely that the support of the Sri Lankan Government would be won by an argument for the secession of part of the country to become a separate Tamil nation state. That is not a credible option under the present constitutional settlement. It must be likely, however, that people could be persuaded by the argument for a new constitution that could confer autonomy for the Tamil people. Yes, there would have to be a referendum, and independent political decisions would have to be taken, but that must all be possible. Within such a self-governing part of Sri Lanka, there would of course have to be freedom for other people to have their human rights acknowledged, whatever their faith, background or interests.
	The Sri Lankan Government responded to the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees by saying that they were awaiting the proposals of the all-party representatives' committee that they set up a year ago. They are doing that, and I welcome it. They are due to report next week. That might be a branch that is worth clinging on to, in order to start climbing back on to a more secure part of the tree. I do not know what the report will say, or how credible it will be, but I recognise that it is clearly important. I hope that it will provide a positive and constructive way forward.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point there. My understanding is that the United Nations Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner would prefer to have an independent UN presence in Sri Lanka the whole time. There seems to have been a long period in which the Sri Lankan Government have employed delaying tactics to try to head that off. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we should still use our good offices at the UN to insist on an independent UN presence?

Simon Hughes: I absolutely do think that; it was going to be the last of my suggestions for the Government. The UN is absolutely clear that unless independent agencies can go where they want to in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan Government will not be believed by the international community. I appreciate that it can be difficult in times of war and hostility, but it is also about allowing independent relief organisations and independent reporting by valid and respectable press people. I am not talking about people with a partisan view, but respectable international journalists with credibility.
	The Sri Lankan Government make a point—and it is not a good point—in their reply to the statement issued by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:
	"The Government wishes to take this opportunity to reiterate its intention to continue the existing dialogue with the UN High Commissioner, with the intention of obtaining assistance the government may require to strengthen domestic mechanisms including the National Human Rights Commission, so that its functions including the investigation and reporting of alleged Human Rights violations could be efficaciously discharged. The government remains committed to strengthen domestic mechanisms, and wishes to avail itself of this opportunity to restate its opposition to the proposal made by the UN High Commissioner to establish UN field presence in Sri Lanka for monitoring and reporting. The government is of the view"—
	they come on to a very odd argument here—
	"that the proposal has not been made applying objectively laid down transparent criteria adopted by the international community and does not reflect the actual ground situation. Furthermore, objective and accurate reasoning which would necessitate the implementation of such a mechanism has not been given by the UN High Commissioner. Thus the proposal is totally unacceptable to the Government of Sri Lanka."
	I have to say that without international adjudication and verification, the Sri Lankan Government will not be regarded as acceptable. I understand the arguments about sovereignty, but if they are trying to win credibility in the world after 30 years of civil war, the UN must be represented in the country and able to go about its business there. The Sri Lankan Government must change their view on that.
	The statement to the UN High Commissioner ended by saying:
	"The government wishes to state that, its decision to end the CFA would not be reversed and would be implemented as previously stated, in the best interest of the country and its people",
	concluding that,
	"with the assistance of its... security forces, the Government of Sri Lanka would take all necessary measures".
	However, the Sri Lankan Government apparently do not believe that a solution by force is the way forward. That being the case, I hope that they will recognise that they must find another way to have dialogue with the LTTE. Given that the co-chairs of the peace process are willing to help, and that the Government of Sri Lanka affirm that they are willing to help, given that the Government are saying that they want a negotiated solution and that a ceasefire agreement is not necessary for such a solution, given that this report is going to the President on 23 January, given that the Government say that they continue to value and uphold Norway's role, and given that they acknowledge that we could assist through our good offices to get all the minority communities to negotiate, it seems to me that it all demands a context where there is no violence or aggression.
	I know that we are about to change the high commissioner in Sri Lanka, and I know that there have been some difficulties about our representation, but I hope that the Minister will soon be able to tell us that, with the support of colleagues on all sides of the House and because of the seriousness of the situation, the Government will increase their efforts to ensure that all parties in Sri Lanka have some grounds for confidence. The Government must make it absolutely clear that to be critical of the Sri Lankan Government's position is not a way of endorsing the activities of the LTTE, but a way of reflecting that until all stakeholders in the outcome are around the table and all parties have the ability to exercise some political power, there will be no justice—and without justice, we will not get the peace.
	I hope that the Government will be robust in helping the Commonwealth and the United Nations to be engaged, which was the request of the community to which I spoke last night. We need to be robust in ensuring that the north is opened up again, and that the Government of Sri Lanka are in no doubt that the present position is unacceptable. Peace is more urgent now than ever.

David Kidney: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing this important debate. As he said, it is very timely for all the worst reasons. Like him, I observed the deterioration at the end of last year and the beginning of this, and asked for a debate to be held this week. That is how important it is at this moment.
	I think the best thing that those of us who are in the Chamber now can do is demonstrate our united support for our Minister, and for the work that he must do in trying to bring together the international community to tackle three immediate interlinked tasks: stemming the recent increase—again—in violence, returning people to talks about peace, and ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it.
	As I think Members will agree, the Minister already has a pretty good track record for demonstrating his commitment to peace in Sri Lanka. He has worked with great application and patience for longer than most in trying to bring about peace in the country. He was instrumental in securing our very full debate on this subject in May last year. I wish him the greatest success in the work that he will do in the coming days, and he has my full support.
	I want to reiterate what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said about the many links that our country has with Sri Lanka, and the interest that all Members take in the subject as a result. There are all the historical and political issues mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but the crucial current issues that make us interested in the country involve the Sri Lankans in all our communities, whom he also mentioned. He is right: people from Sri Lanka have come to this country, enriched our lives, and reached positions of great influence. I think of engineers, lawyers and doctors in my constituency, and of friends of mine who came from Sri Lanka originally. I think, too, of the civic links that we have with Sri Lanka throughout the country.
	Last autumn I sat down in a school in my constituency, Walton high school, and listened to students who told me about taking part in the world challenge in Sri Lanka last summer. Twenty students and teachers from the school joined students and staff from 13 other schools around the country, establishing links with Sri Lankan schools. It is at that people-to-people level that we in this country feel such great concern to learn of an eruption of greater violence, and the human tragedy and greater instability that it is creating in Sri Lankan society. I am sure that we all feel a determination that that should stop.
	I know the Minister will agree that we are speaking of a country of great beauty, and a people of great talent. They have so much to offer the rest of the world and so much to gain for themselves if they can secure the political stability and get the democratic structure right, and if there can be tolerance between groups in their society. There is so much for them to gain, and there is so much being lost while the violence and disagreements that we are witnessing continue.
	I wish my hon. Friend the Minister the greatest success in the important days that lie ahead.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), not only for securing this timely debate but for allowing me and others to intervene briefly.
	We know from our debate last May that what we say in the House is scrutinised very carefully in the Sri Lankan Parliament. Indeed, an entire debate was held there on our debate in May. I believe that one or two unfortunate comments were made in the debate, and that the wrong impression was left after it; so I think that we must be very careful. We must recognise that there is a democratically elected Government in Sri Lanka. It is not perfect, but it is better than some of the alternatives.
	It is on a note of sadness that we are here today at the time of a recent upswing in violence, as indeed was the case when we last debated the subject. Every death on either side increases the suspicion on both sides, and I call for all parties to exercise restraint.

Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that while we would, of course, wish there to be forbearance on both sides, it was the Sri Lankan Government who unilaterally abrogated the ceasefire agreement in January this year?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was coming on to that, and it is an important point, but we must be very temperate and careful in what we say in these debates.
	The recent history of the LTTE—the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—started in 1983-84. That was a time of considerable trouble in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that anybody then would have predicted that the Irish Government would give up article 3 of its constitution claiming sovereignty over the north, or that some of the principal leaders of both sides would be sitting in a democratically elected devolved Parliament in the Province of Northern Ireland with, as we hope, the peace process going forward. Therefore, while I take on board the remarks of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey about the black nature of Sri Lanka's future, with good will on both sides it is not impossible that we could move to a peaceful solution. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on precisely the right button when he called for a confederate solution—a solution whereby there is a devolved Government of the Tamil areas with considerable autonomy, but under the sovereign Government of an elected Sri Lankan Parliament. I can envisage such a solution in times to come.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) that it was unfortunate that the Sri Lankan Government abrogated the peace agreement unilaterally, and I had a discussion with the high commissioner this morning in which I made that very point. The agreement might not have been perfect, but it did
	"recognise the importance of bringing an end to hostilities and improving the living conditions for all inhabitants affected by the conflict",
	and it further agreed that
	"bringing an end to the hostilities is also seen...as a means of establishing a positive atmosphere in which further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution can be taken."
	I hope that all people of good will would agree that everybody should share that aspiration. I hope that the Sri Lankan Government and all the Tamil factions will be able to get together around a table and start negotiating because, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said, there has to be a political solution. That was the one message from Northern Ireland: there could never be a military solution. There will never be a military solution to the Sri Lankan Government's problems.
	I was delighted to receive an assurance from the high commissioner this morning—she allowed me to say this in the debate—that her Government are absolutely committed to finding a political solution. I hope and believe that that is so, in which case the different sides must get around the table and talk.
	It is unfortunate that the international monitoring commission has been withdrawn. The considerable efforts of the Norwegians are proving difficult not only because they cannot monitor a ceasefire that does not take place, but they cannot monitor the process either. I made the point to the high commissioner this morning that it is important that we get some form of international monitoring under United Nations auspices in the country, so that accusations and counter-accusations can be verified by a completely independent body or individual.
	When I went to Nepal, there was a powerful United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative there; he was a Brit—a Scot—and he was widely respected by all sides and was able to act as an interlocutor where the Nepalese Government were unable to go. We should be looking for that sort of model for Sri Lanka.
	The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is sitting in his place, and I wish to pay great tribute to him. I hope that he is able to go back to Sri Lanka, because he was widely respected by all sides and was able to talk to all sides. He was also able, modestly and patiently, to give all sides the benefit of his experience, which is characteristic of him. I hope that he will be able to revisit that beautiful island shortly, and that his good offices will begin to help the peace process again.
	Mention has been made of the All Party Representative Committee report due to be handed to President Rajapakse on 23 January. It will be interesting to see what the committee comes up with, whether it is independent and whether it will move things forward. I truly that it will, because all-party talks are the route we should take.
	Both sides must recognise that in this type of dispute—the parties in Northern Ireland were in exactly the same position, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen knows only too well—people have to abandon the positions that they hold, although that might not be comfortable. The Tamil Tigers might have to recognise things and do things that they do not want to do. If there is to be a lasting peace process, it must be just that; both sides must recognise each other's position and recognise that they cannot just adopt the status quo.
	It is not the Government, the armed forces or the LTTE who suffer, but the innocent civilians who get caught up in all this. I made it clear it to the high commissioner that the bombing the other day of the base at Kilinochchi was not acceptable. Bombing one's own people, even if one thinks that one is bombing an LTTE base, is unacceptable, because bombing cannot be that precise that it hits only one's opponents.

Keith Vaz: What was the high commissioner's response when the hon. Gentleman raised that concern with her?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Some parts of my conversation should not necessarily be in the public domain. I am merely reporting to the House the points that I made to the high commissioner in the same manner as I am now, so that they can be heard in this House.
	I call for restraint on all sides, because innocent civilians are the ones who suffer. We want this beautiful island to go forward as a democracy and as a full member of the Commonwealth. It has a wonderful future if peace can prevail. Its economy and tourism are fantastic; it has fantastic jungles, mountains and archaeological sites, all of which need to be generally open to the world. The island has a huge amount to contribute, and I believe that with good will peace could prevail.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who ably opened this debate. We are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to speak briefly on an important issue.
	When we last debated this issue, I recalled the visit I made to Sri Lanka just over a year ago. I was given absolute access to anywhere I wanted to go, including the LTTE-controlled parts of the island and the LTTE's headquarters. I met its second in command, who has recently been killed. That brought it home to me how difficult and tragic the times now are in Sri Lanka. The assassinations of Ministers, Members of Parliament and innocent members of the public are all too redolent of what we experienced in our country over 20 or 30 years.
	The answer is obviously a political one. All the hon. Members who have spoken mentioned the importance of a political solution. There is no military solution to this problem. The Sri Lankan Government have said that, and I am sure that everybody involved in the peace process in Sri Lanka would echo it. Most interestingly, from a Northern Ireland point of view, that was also Martin McGuinness's message when he went to talk to people in Sri Lanka some time ago. As he is now Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, he told both sides in Sri Lanka that there could not be a military solution and that the war simply could not be won by either side. That has to underpin everything that we do as a Government and a country to help in Sri Lanka. My hon. Friend the Minister would be the first to say that we have a special reason to intervene in this case. We were, after all, the colonial power for many years, and we are also in the same Commonwealth of nations.
	It is not beyond the wit of the international community, in its different forms, to intervene in this terrible conflict, which, in some respects, appears to have been forgotten. The co-chairs of the peace process, the Norwegians, have played an excellent role, and we have played our part, too, but it strikes me that the international community must make a special effort to ensure that the ceasefire is restored.
	I regret, like everybody else, the end of the ceasefire, even though it was not particularly effective. Nevertheless, it has to be replaced. It is certain that we would not have had peace in Northern Ireland without a proper ceasefire that was recognised by all sides. When a ceasefire is established in Sri Lanka, policed and monitored by the international community, we will be on the way to success. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have some ideas about how to take forward the proposals.
	Most importantly, people in Sri Lanka need hope. In a few months' time, it will be the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. This time 10 years ago, when I was Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, there was a murder every night. Everybody in Northern Ireland thought that the process had collapsed and was dead. In a matter of months, because of the effort of the international community and everybody involved, we signed that historic agreement. I am sure that those lessons can be learned in Sri Lanka and that we will pay an important role in that.
	We have an excellent new high commissioner in Colombo; I know that he will play an important role. The opportunity to discuss the subject that the collapse of today's business has given us will be welcomed by all people who feel good will towards that beautiful country. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister concludes the debate, he will say that there is some possibility that the UK Government will intervene in this important matter.

Andrew Love: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on the measured and balanced speech with which he opened the debate. I was struck by the contrast between today's debate, the tone of which has been rather consensual, and our last debate on the subject. I suspect that in the months since that debate we have learned a great deal more about the situation in Sri Lanka, and so members of all parties can come to similar conclusions on how we will try to make progress.
	Without wishing to repeat what has been said, I think that we recognise that this is a long, drawn-out conflict. It started in the early 1980s and since then more than 70,000 people have died. However, today, more than at any point over the past five years, we face the prospect of a return to civil war. That is why the debate is apposite. It is important that we should concentrate and try to get the Government to do more to stop that decline to civil war.
	I do not want to go over the ground that has been covered, but I want to mention three things. Human rights have been a primary concern. Anyone who reads the reports on the subject from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or any other body will be only too aware that there has been an explosion in the number of human rights violations. Perhaps that is understandable, as there has been a decline in relations between the different communities. Of course, the decision to withdraw from the ceasefire agreement has not helped.
	The Sri Lankan Government say that they are committed to human rights and they have taken some measures to deliver that commitment; they have set up a commission of inquiry and begun investigations into 17 violation cases. As has been noted, they have also established an eminent persons group, one of whom is an eminent lawyer from this country, but there is still considerable disappointment at the lack of progress.
	There are also concerns about how the investigations are being conducted. The backdrop is that so far there have been no prosecutions at all for human rights violations, and that has raised anxiety about whether the mechanism that has been adopted is likely to inspire trust—among people on the island of Sri Lanka and in the wider international community—that those guilty of human rights abuses are being brought to justice.
	Louise Arbour is the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. Last year, the Sri Lankan Government agreed that she should visit the island, and her time there was very productive. We understand that Sri Lanka's Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights has a memorandum of understanding with the UN, but it is widely accepted internationally that that Government's withdrawal from the ceasefire meant that the monitoring mission conducted by Norway and the Scandinavian countries could no longer be effective. That makes it even more urgent that we find a way to monitor human rights and collect the evidence that will bring violators to justice.
	A representative from Sri Lanka's Muslim community visited me last week to express the considerable concern that exists about what is happening to Muslims, especially in the east of Sri Lanka. In addition, the desperate worries felt by members of the Tamil diaspora in this country for their families and relatives in Sri Lanka have been expressed at meetings in this House over many months. The only way forward is to establish proper human rights monitoring in Sri Lanka, and it has been widely accepted around the Chamber today that the UN is the proper body to carry that out. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell the House what pressure he is exerting to secure the UN's involvement in that respect. People in Sri Lanka and around the world need to be reassured that something is being done.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, especially as I have already made a speech in the debate, but he has made a point that needs clarifying. Last year's visit to Sri Lanka by the UN's Louise Arbour was welcome, but one visit is not the same as having a permanent UN representative stationed in the country. The UN representative in Nepal has been successful precisely because he is permanently on hand to deal with things when they go wrong.

Andrew Love: I accept that entirely. I did not intend to give the impression that I was asking for only the odd visit, as of course I believe that we need a permanent mission in Sri Lanka. The mission would need to be run independently through the UN, as that would give everyone the assurance that they seek.
	The second matter about which I want to speak is the ceasefire agreement. Like other hon. Members, I was very saddened by the Sri Lankan Government's decision to withdraw from it. Various reasons have been suggested for that withdrawal, and I have a degree of sympathy with some of them. For example, it has been claimed that the ceasefire had given the LTTE a chance to rearm, to conscript children and young people and to perpetrate acts of terrorism.
	However, I was interested to read recently that new reasons were being given for the Sri Lankan Government's withdrawal from the ceasefire, and one was that the agreement was seriously flawed. I think that everyone would accept that the document was not perfect, but the circumstances in which it was drawn up may have rendered that impossible. People were trying to make progress, and drawing up the ceasefire agreement was intended to be only the start of the process and to give momentum to it. We all understand that the reason why the ceasefire has not been as successful as we hoped is that that momentum was lost. In addition, the security forces were always understandably concerned about the layout. However, we have to ask why those issues are being raised now. That is the concern felt by this House and the international community.
	One of the criticisms advanced to which I am slightly more sympathetic is that the ceasefire agreement was only with the LTTE. Representatives of the Muslim community come to me saying that they want to be involved in the peace process. Members of the Tamil community who are not sympathetic to the aspirations of the LTTE say that they want to be represented as well. The example of Northern Ireland shows that all the representatives who speak on behalf of sections of the community are needed if agreement is to be reached. I therefore have sympathy with that view.

Brian Binley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that there is another group of people who need to be represented and protected and whose lifestyles need to be massively improved. They are the 160,000 people who are the product of the series of wars, fighting actions and so on—the people of Puttalam, the forgotten people of Sri Lanka. I do not want them to be omitted from this debate or from the Minister's work. Their situation is a scar on humanity generally. I hope that the Minister will remember those 160,000 people and that in his discussions with the Sri Lankan Government, he will include their plight and the hope that something can be done about it.

Andrew Love: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Again, I remind the House that the LTTE decided that it no longer wanted the Muslim community to be part of the polity that was created in the north of the island, and many members of that community became internally displaced as a result. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, which reaffirm that we need to include democratic representatives of all parts of all the communities if we are to reach a solid, permanent and sustainable solution.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I listened carefully to his comments on the imperfections in the ceasefire agreement, but does he not agree that what any party to that agreement should have done in response to those imperfections is propose a better ceasefire agreement—a more inclusive one, if that would be better—not withdraw unilaterally from the extant agreement? To do the latter is a counsel of despair, not a counsel of hope.

Andrew Love: In my view, the ceasefire that has just been broken was the only game in town. I accept the criticisms that have been made. Even when it was signed, it was criticised by both sides—indeed, by all sides, both internationally and in Sri Lanka. However, having a ceasefire agreement can be the basis for progress. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said, it is only on the basis of a ceasefire that one can move forward. When there is no longer a ceasefire, the first priority must be to create one before seeking political progress.
	Given the concern that has been expressed this evening about the decision to withdraw from the ceasefire agreement, I want to know what steps the UK Government have taken to press the Sri Lankan Government regarding their intentions. What political capital is there behind the prospect of further negotiations to re-establish, if not the same ceasefire agreement, then another to replace it?
	On the peace process, to repeat what the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the Government of Sri Lanka have reassured me that they are in favour of a negotiated solution. They point to the all-party conference, which a number of Members mentioned.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Ms  Diana R.  Johnson.]

Andrew Love: I thought for a second that I had hit the gong. I shall be brief in order to allow the Minister plenty of time to respond.
	The all-party conference, which should produce its recommendations on 23 January, has been running for more than a year and a half. I must say as an interested outside observer that it has not always gone smoothly. Some of the recommendations from individual political parties are not likely to command support across the community, and I hope that the Sri Lanka Government will not feel bound by such recommendations. It is important that they take the initiative and do what they feel is most appropriate to bring the parties together and start dialogue on a ceasefire agreement again, in order to move towards peace.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, although I came to listen and learn, not to make a contribution. Hon. Members have spoken several times about the lessons learned from Northern Ireland, and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke about hope, but trust is also key. Alongside the ceasefire, a decommissioning process will be needed. One of the key things that allowed us to move from military to political action in Northern Ireland was the outside intervention of de Chastelain, who brought trust to the decommissioning process. Such a process needs to be included in the all-party conference's recommendations, so that the communities can begin to trust each other as well.

Andrew Love: I agree. One hopes that Norway and the international community can help to play that role. I hope that one of the urgent issues for discussion after the all-party conference reports will be exactly that—how to start building confidence among the different communities and how to get people to sit down to sign. A ceasefire can be signed only if there is some confidence in it and in the political process that will follow. We need to create that confidence. The international community has a big role to play in doing so.
	Mention has been made of Norway's role as facilitator continuing even when the monitoring mission ends. The international community also has a role in trying to start dialogue between sides, as has been said. That is critical. One of my biggest concerns is that there appears to be no dialogue, public or private, between the Tamil National Alliance, which is represented in Parliament, and the Government of Sri Lanka. That is of considerable concern. There also seems to be no dialogue with the Muslim community, which recently left the Government coalition. That is another worry. The international community has a role to play in trying to re-establish dialogue, whether private or public.
	As part of the international community, what is the United Kingdom doing with other countries—including Japan, the United States and India, Sri Lanka's closest neighbour—to start the dialogue that will lead to a ceasefire agreement and, hopefully, a peace process? As has been said, we have a unique role to play. We are the former colonial power and have large Tamil and Singhalese communities living in our country. The UK knows Sri Lanka probably better than any other country in the international community, and we as a Parliament need reassurance that the Government are doing everything that they can to resolve the bitter differences on that island.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, as I can see the Minister champing at the bit, ready to reply to the debate. We want to hear what he has to say.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate and on a consistent interest in Sri Lanka over many years. He and I have attended many wet weekends in Trafalgar square to discuss the plight of the people of Sri Lanka, and I congratulate him on that.
	The history of Sri Lanka since 1983 and even back to 1958 has been one of almost unremitting tragedy. I was first elected to the House in 1983. The riots broke out at that time. Large numbers of Tamil asylum seekers came to the United Kingdom and to other European countries at that time. The loss of life goes on and on. There are generations of people who have never known anything but a state of war in their country—young people growing up who have never known anything other than bombardments and all the accompanying problems.
	I echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). There is a massive peace dividend to be had, not just for the Tamil people but for the Sinhala people, the Muslim people and everybody else across the whole country. If a ceasefire can be renegotiated and put in place, followed by serious negotiations that can bring about a long-term and lasting settlement, everybody will be a lot better off. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, if a country the size of Sri Lanka, with all the problems that it has—and it also has huge opportunities—spends £1 billion a year on arms, plus all the expenditure made by all the other groups, that is money denied to development, education and housing.
	Until the breakdown of community relations, Sri Lanka probably had the best record of education, health care, literacy levels and all the other indices that one would care to measure across the whole of Asia. It also had a sophisticated intellectual society and sophisticated political development and process. All that has imploded and collapsed, which is tragic to see.
	There are serious problems of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. They have been brought to the attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and to the UN Human Rights Council. I have been in Geneva when many such representations were made. Although I acknowledge the replies given by the Sri Lanka High Commission in the UK and the views of the Sri Lankan Government that they should conduct their own human rights process, the time has passed for that.
	There must be a permanent—that is, for as long as necessary—independent UN representation in Sri Lanka that can go to all parts of the community, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen was able to do, and verify abuses of human rights wherever they occur and whoever has caused those abuses. There is no alternative solution as the start of a confidence-building process.
	The Minister should give all the encouragement he can in support of the efforts of the Norwegian Government and others to get the ceasefire back in operation as quickly as possible. That must be followed quickly by serious peace negotiations with the LTTE and with every other group in the society as a whole. If there is merely a ceasefire and nothing changes other than a cessation of the worst kinds of violence, the factors that provoked and promoted the violence in the first place will still exist. A longer-term peace process must be promoted.
	My final point is that made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. Historically, Sri Lanka has been occupied by colonial powers, latterly by Britain. The British record all over the world was often one of almost deliberately provoking conflict between different linguistic and different ethnic groups. There is a legacy of that in many former colonies around the world and its price tends to be the collapse of societies. However, it is possible for there to be a multilingual, multi-ethnic society on one island and degrees of autonomy within the national state framework. Such things are possible. If we do not achieve them, what is the future for Sri Lanka? It is another 30 years of war, another 30 years of bombardment and another 30 years of damage to people's lives.
	I hope that the Minister can help with getting the ceasefire back on track. Above all, I hope that the Sri Lankan Government recognise that those of us who take up the cause of human rights and speak up for the cause of Tamil refugees are not anti-Sri Lanka—quite the opposite. We are pro-Sri Lanka, because we want peace and justice for all the people of that island.

Kim Howells: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing this timely debate. I pay tribute to him for his work and interest over many years on behalf of all Sri Lankan people. Like him, I welcome the presence in the Chamber tonight of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides who are passionate about this subject. I am thinking especially of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who has devoted considerable energy and courage to the peace process in Sri Lanka. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was here until a short while ago, and he has been using his great expertise and a lot of his time on the issue. I pay tribute to his work as well.
	Let me begin by condemning unreservedly, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey did, yesterday's terrorist attack on a bus in Uva province. It killed as many as 30 people and injured more than 60. It is the latest example of a deeply worrying cycle of violence that has brought misery to Sri Lankans from all communities. Like everyone in the House, I am sure, I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of the victims. I want to express the Government's condemnation and loathing of the continuing use of murder and terrorism as tactics in trying to further political aims.
	We are fortunate tonight; what was likely to have been a half-hour Adjournment debate—I talked to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey about it—has turned into a full-blown debate longer than many scheduled debates in which I have been involved. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact of the Government of Sri Lanka's decision to abrogate the ceasefire agreement. The end of an internationally brokered agreement is a matter of great regret and like the hon. Gentleman I pay tribute to the tireless work of the Norwegian facilitators and the Sri Lanka monitoring mission, often in extremely difficult circumstances. I applaud the continuing commitment of Norway and the other co-chairs—the US, the EU and Japan—to working for peace. Their task remains Herculean.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me last week about what could be done to restart negotiations. We should not underestimate the serious obstacles to that on both sides. Following the end of the ceasefire agreement, the Sri Lankan Government appear determined to inflict a military defeat on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or the LTTE. In November, Prabhakaran, the LTTE leader, called on Tamils to rise up for the liberation of Tamil Eelam. There is little substance around which to base negotiations, but the international community must clearly continue to stay engaged, stop the violence and help Sri Lanka build a credible environment for a sustainable peace process.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend will pardon me for not giving way; I have an enormous amount of ground to cover.
	Having chosen to end the ceasefire arrangement, the Sri Lankan Government have a clear responsibility to live up to their commitment to address the grievances of the Tamil people. In July 2006, the Government of Sri Lanka gave an all-party representative committee—the APRC—the job of drawing up a framework for settlement. The committee made a promising start in its interim report more than a year ago by advocating that the province should be the unit of devolution and that a second chamber would help ensure power sharing for the minorities at the centre.
	We know from our own experience that the process of devolution is not easy, and it continues to be difficult, but the whole process regarding the committee's business has not been easy. The committee has been bedevilled by those who oppose a peace process and have attempted to derail its work, and it has been hindered by a lack of consensus between the main parties. The Tamil National Alliance was not invited to participate—a big mistake, in my view. The committee is due to present its final recommendations in a little over a week. We think it important that those recommendations go beyond the current constitutional provisions to protect minority rights. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) for drawing the House's attention to the fact that all minorities have to be protected and represented. We have called on the President urgently to take a bold and courageous lead from this foundation to set out a framework for a just solution within a united Sri Lanka that satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. The international community will be watching carefully, and we do not want to see another false dawn.
	I do not believe that those in the LTTE who advocate the use of murder and terrorism represent the hopes and aspirations of the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka and around the world. The LTTE must renounce terrorism and demonstrate a real commitment to democratic principles if it is to be regarded internationally as a legitimate political movement. There needs to be a full debate among the Tamils, free of intimidation and polarisation, on what an acceptable political settlement might look like for the Tamil people. The message that we have for the Government of Sri Lanka—that there can be no military solution to this appalling conflict—applies equally to the LTTE. Some Tamils argue that the military pursuit of self-determination is generated by a sense of despair that their grievances will never be addressed in a united Sri Lanka. It is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka allay those fears and give them hope. For Sri Lanka to find a way forward, we need to see signs of genuine good will from the Government to any proposals for devolution that might emerge and a readiness on the part of disillusioned Tamils to contemplate alternatives to self-determination. Without generating trust and confidence, that will not happen.
	The withdrawal of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission can only add to deep concern about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. As we have heard, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited Sri Lanka recently. She said that Sri Lanka had many of the elements needed for a strong national protection scheme. She was, however, alarmed at the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity for those abusing human rights. I have not heard the word "impunity" tonight, but it is a very important one. That sense of impunity on the part of gangsters, warlords and people who call themselves freedom fighters to murder, torture and kidnap, is something that no civilised country, or the international community, can put up with. She criticised the absence of credible systems of public accountability for the vast majority of these deplorable incidents and the general lack of confidence in the ability of existing Government institutions to safeguard against the most serious human rights abuses. Surely that must be the first duty of any Government in any sovereign state in the world.
	The high commissioner stated that the current human rights protection gap was not solely a question of capacity. She stressed the need for independent gathering of information on credible allegations regarding human rights, not just in areas controlled by the Government but including areas controlled by the LTTE. She underlined her deep concern at LTTE violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including the recruitment of children, forced recruitment and abduction of adults, and political killings. We definitely support the calls for a much more effective UN human rights monitoring presence on the island, and I was glad to hear hon. Friends and hon. Members advocate that policy, because it is very important.
	The human rights crisis in Sri Lanka is not a figment of the international community's imagination, as some who vilify human rights defenders in Sri Lanka would have us believe. The crisis is real. The LTTE, the Karuna faction—the Tamileela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal—and the Government all share responsibility. There is an urgent need to address the culture of impunity that persists. The case for an expanded presence and mandate in Sri Lanka for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can only be stronger following the departure of the Sri Lanka monitoring mission.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey spoke of the understandable concerns of the Tamil community about the plight of Tamils in north Sri Lanka. Their inability to reach relatives on the north of the island, or even to communicate with them, should trouble us greatly. I can assure the House that we attach great importance to listening to all perspectives across the Sri Lankan diaspora about that and many other matters. Foreign Office officials meet diaspora groups on a regular basis. Tamil community groups have suggested, following the recent arrests of LTTE supporters in the UK, that they no longer feel free to express their opinion on the conflict and the plight of the Tamils. I will say this: the community is free to assemble in a legal, orderly manner to express its concerns; it did just that last July in Trafalgar square, and it has done so in recent days.
	An open debate is needed within the Tamil community on what a just political solution might look like as an alternative to the target of breaking the sovereign state of Sri Lanka into two parts. I say that because we have witnessed terrible events in Pakistan during the past two weeks. Many of us recall not just the horrors of the separation of India and Pakistan that occurred in 1947-48, and the millions who died, but the terrible events when what was East Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh, broke away from Pakistan. Those can be terrible moments, and bring terrible conflicts. Millions can die, and we do not want to see that in Sri Lanka. There must be another way, and we have heard many suggestions in the debate of what might happen. The diaspora must be able to play a more constructive part in bringing peace to Sri Lanka.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman particularly wants to focus on British assistance for a peace process in Sri Lanka, and he has kindly acknowledged the recent efforts of the Government in this regard. I visited Sri Lanka twice last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen also visited a year or so ago, and we sought to offer the benefit of our Northern Ireland experience.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked what happens to the money that was placed in the hands of the Government in the aftermath of the tsunami. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development has visited the country, and he has maintained great vigilance in monitoring British aid to Sri Lanka for post-tsunami reconstruction and other humanitarian works. I made a point on my last visit of making sure that I got out to the east of the island to see some of that reconstruction work, bedevilled as it is by the ongoing conflict—there is no question about that.
	A lasting peace can come only if the underlying causes of conflict are addressed, and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made that point time and time again. Peace will not happen until the parties to the conflict understand that nothing can be gained from continuing violence. Some in Sri Lanka did not welcome our involvement. We regret the fact that they did not understand, or chose not to, that our aim has been simply to do what we can to help the Sri Lankans find a way forward. We have no ulterior motives. We remain ready to help with the search for peace in Sri Lanka.
	What can we do specifically at this difficult time? I have been asked that question a number of times tonight. We have to continue to work with international partners to make it clear that there cannot be a military solution, and to work for a cessation of hostilities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, a new ceasefire must be constructed as quickly as possible if we are to make progress.
	We must press the Government of Sri Lanka to address the grievances of Tamils through a credible and sustainable political solution. We must urge the LTTE to change. We continue to make available the benefit of our Northern Ireland experience, press all concerned to safeguard human rights and humanitarian space and combat any notions of impunity for those guilty of abuses and murder.
	We must encourage the diaspora to play a bigger role in the search for peace. We must try to learn the lessons of five years of the ceasefire agreement. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and others said that it was not perfect but a basis for peace and moving forward. We should learn lessons from that.
	We must work quietly and patiently behind the scenes with all the communities and with civil society in Sri Lanka to sow the seeds of a future resolution of the conflict. Members of organisations—non-governmental organisations and others—must be confident that they will not be kidnapped or murdered as they go about their work. That is vital.
	The end of the ceasefire agreement is confirmation that we have entered a dangerous new phase in Sri Lanka. The Government and the LTTE both appear to believe that they can achieve their aims through military means. We believe that they are wrong.

Barry Gardiner: Given the threat that my hon. Friend mentioned of the escalation of violence, will he hold discussions with hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence about cutting any military assistance to the Sri Lankan Government to try to ensure that such an escalation cannot happen?

Kim Howells: I assure my hon. Friend that we would not supply anyone with arms or dual use material that we perceived to be valuable in any military conflict such as the one that we are considering. There may be instances of humanitarian equipment, for example, de-mining equipment, being needed. Laying mines is an atrocity and an abuse of human rights and we do everything that we can to try to help clear them.
	The Sri Lankan Government, having ended the ceasefire, bear a heavy responsibility to deliver their commitment to produce a just political solution that satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. That must happen soon.
	The LTTE needs to embrace democratic principles, encourage an open debate on what a just political solution for the Tamils might resemble and commit to pursuing its aims through peaceful means. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said, the use of terrorism and murder since 1983 has brought only misery and suffering to many innocent people in Sri Lanka. It continues to do so.
	Britain remains ready to help. The international community has to stay engaged to help Sri Lanka find a way back to a sustainable peace process. Protection of human rights in Sri Lanka will remain a high priority for the international community with, we hope, a more prominent role for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sri Lanka. Moreover, it should be guaranteed the security required to undertake its work.
	When President Rajapakse launched the APRC 18 months ago, he spoke of the need to take the necessary bold steps to put an end to dashed hopes and aspirations and lost opportunities. I hope that, this year, which marks the 60th anniversary of Sri Lankan independence, the president will take a bold lead to achieve just that. I remind him that the world is watching and waiting.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.